Star.
London, England, 1810-11-27 00:00:00

';

40111111 K
LAW INIELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NOVEMBER 26.
THE ATTORNEY GF.N KRAL c. THE TRUSTEES 01 t Ar
• . CIfA; I 'V AT lIASTLNGS. _ _ _

If appeared that the Trustees had let lands belong-
log to the Charity, which was rot the education of poor
boys, at £l3l a.year, and refused to accept an offer
made by a responsible person of .4210 it year for the
same lands, upon a lease for 14 years. • The gentle,
man made the offer preferred his bill, and a re-
ference was made to the Master, who reported that
the lands in question were worth the X2lO ; and the
case came before the Court again by way of excep-
tions to the Master's report. And Mr. Richards, for
the Trustees, stated that it was often the practice to
let lands without any lease ; that evidence had been
laid before the Master to show that £l3l a year was
a reasonable rent, and that it might be better to take
a low, rent from year to yett, v. ith.-opportunity of
miring it, and with good security, than a high one
with doubtful security, and a lease fear 14 years.
The Lon CnANcEt.t.ott observed, that nothing had
been urged against the ability of the gentleman
who had offered the larger ruin ; and at any rate the
lands might be let, with security to be approved of
by the Master. Undel- these circumstance. the Master's
report was conhrrned.

COURT OF XING'S BENCH.-Nev.-24.
TIIE KING v. DANIEL LO ELL;
The lefeihtant in this case was brought np for
judgment, having suffered judgment to go by de-
fault, upon an indictment for printing and publishing
a gross and malicious libel upon the Commishio iers
of Property Tax for the district of Salford and Man-
chester„ in the County of Lancaster.
The defendant is the printer and proprietor of the
Statesman evening eewspaper, and the libel cora-
piained of was contained in a letter to the Editor,
signed John Collier, charging these Commissioners
with making an unfair surcharge upon him, and
casting many reflections upon their conduct. Also a
paragraphin the same paper,commentingon this letter.
After hearing the Attorney General fbx the prose-
cution, and a few words froth the defendant, the
Court remanded 'him to the custody of the Marshal
of the Marshalsea (being already in custody for a si-
milar offence) to be brought up for final judgment
on the last day of the Term.
Nov. 26.—The KING v. JOHN GALE JONES.
The defendant was this day brought up to receive
the judgment of the Court, for a libel on Viseonot
Castlereagh.
Mr. Justice GnosE addressed the defeadant.-
66 John Gale Jones,Nyou are to receive the sentence of
this Court, convicted of having composed, printed,
• •
and published, of and concerning the Right Hon.
Viscount Castlereagh-(who had been one of his Ma-
jesty's Szcretaries of State) one of the most cruel,
Offensive, and malignant libels which could be devised
by one man concerning another, in which you have
thought fit to charge his Lordship with acting in that
high office from motives of personal ill-will towards a
private individual, and with having made use of his
authority and influence, as Secretary of State, to ha-
rass:And oppress such individual, in such a way, as,
if true, would not only render him unfit to fill that
high station in which he had been placed, but would
prove him one Of the most base of individuals. It is
not my intention to recite the Ebel ; it has been sn
frequently and so lately read, and so ably commented
upon both from the Bench and the Bar, that I think
it unnecessary to attempt to add any observations to
these already made. Suffice it to say, that, if it were
true, no honourable man would permit himself to as-
sociate with the Noble person libelled r anti if false,
every person must hold in horror and detestation the
person uttering it ; and the time at which this was
published forms a great aggravation, proving most
clearly the studious malignity of the author of this
libel, which was cakulated to inflict pain not only on
his Lordship, but on every one of his friends and re-
latives.
66 In the address to the Court for mitigation, we
look in vain for any thing which can extenuate your
effence, or mitigate your sentence. You claim merit
as having done what you did, as a friend to the free-
.
dom of the press. The best friend to the freedom of
the press, distinguishes between tke freedom and the
licetitiousness of the press ; he knows that the one is
the greatest enemy to the
.other, and that nothing is
oq • nicely to bring into abhorrence that freedom, ass.!
. the unrestrained and unpunished licentiousness'of it. 1.
Our law, which is studious to protect the one, is at-;
• tenti.ve to punish the other ; and were it not so it is'
obvious that every good man's name and reputation
(which are as dear to him as his existence) would be
at the mercy of those miscreants, who, having no re-
putation to lose, delight in the destruction of that of
others. Be assured that the most inveterate enemy
to the freedom of the press is he who, eager for base
lucre, or from malignant motives, thinks tit to support
and promote the licentiousness of it. It is one thing
coolly and temperately to discuss the merits of a man
and his conduct, and another to prejudge them, and
pronounce the one and the other infamous, without
weighing either candidly and considerately. In the
one, decently done and upon proper occasion, there
may great benefit arise to society ; whilst the other,
springing from some of the basest passions that de-
prave the human heart, rob a man -of the greatest
blessings he can enjtv, that of a good name ; for the
loss of which there can be no adequate compensation.
" Considering, therefore, the tendency of the. libel;
the peculiarly malignant and alarming mode of its
publication ; that there was not a colourof vindication,
nor ar:y thing like mitigation of your crime—to cor-
. tea you, and
.by your example to deter others from
committing thr... same Offence, this Court cloth order
. and adjudge that for this offence you be imprisoned
to the House of Correction, situate in Cold Batt]-
. Adds, for twelve calendar months ; and the Court
ao;11 farther order and adjudge, that for this off,uce,
at the expiration of that tithe, Ott do give security
for your good bchav4pur, for three years, yourself in
t. 500, with two sufficient sureties in 250 each, inil-
.that you be further imprisoned until those sureties be
given."

a daring and alarming breach 'of the peace, aggra- '
vated by the circumstance of the 'offence having been,
committed within the' theatre of such a great and
clmmercial town is that of Liverpool. The defen* ,
dants were, or pretended to be dissatisfied with the
prices charged at this theatre, their object was to have
these prices reduced, and the mode pitched upon by
them for accomplishing ti is end was, to prevent the I
proceeding of the performances by raising noises, &c.
In .a country like this, every man has a right to ask
what he pleased for his labour, and, on the other hand,
everyone who was to use the labour of that person I
hid a right to judge if he would, give to him the
price he asked. It was not for the Court to judge of !
the reasonableness of the price, demanded. If the
party making the charge was justifiable in exacting
the sum he demanded, those wlio were of a contrary
opinion, and theisight the charge too much, ought not
to have gone to the place where the supposed over-
charge was demanded. If the charge was unreason-
able, still they had no right to take redress at their
own hands, but should have applied for it in a legal
manner. It was not to be permitted that in a pepu-
lons and commercial town such ,as Liverpool; the
property of iiiose engaged in such a concern as a
theatre, and the safety, nay, even the lives of those
who were ascent, peaceably to resort thither, paying
the price demanded of them, should be left at the
mercy of men who, disputing theamount of the prices
of admittance demanded, chose to take the remedy into I
their own hands. There were degrees of guilt, however,
'in the cases of the different defendants now called to
receive the judgment tef the Court. The case of one
of the defendants was aggravated by a publication,
made by him, pending the disturbances ; and that of
another by his having forgotten the character and re-
spectability of the inufession to which he.belonged. It
might be too severe in the Court set once to cut off
this latter Gentleman for ever frotitthe profession to
which he beluoged, but the Coest warned him of the'
danger of a second offence. In .16 whole circum-
stances of the case, the sentence of the Court was, that
Abraham Lemon and Charles Rawlinson be commit-
ted to the Castle of Lancaster for .twelve calendar
months each ; Thomas Turner aid John Robinson
for three months each, and Martin Wil-
son and Mathew Carter, for two months each.
TIIE RING V. PETER FINNERTY.

Mr. Coiwooe stated that he wAs instructed to ap
ply to the Court in this case, the defendant having had
notice to appear to receive the judgment of the Court
to-thy. He observed that he had an affidavit which
he had handed to the Attorney General, stating that
Mr. Finnerty was confined to his bed by illness, la-
bouring under a fever, and that it would be attended
with hazard to his life to appear here. The Lear-
ned Counsel therefore humbly applied to their Lord-
ships that the recognizance might be respited till the
next term.
The affidavit of John Staunton, of the Strand, sur-
geon, was read, stating that he had attended Mr. Fin-
nerty yesterday and this morning, When he laboured
under a very severe fever, and that if he left his cham-
bers his life would be endangered.
Mr. ATTORNEY GINERAL—" My Lord, I leave
this entirely to the discretion of the Court."
Lord ELLENBOROU6H—.." Then we must respite the
recognizance ; it is sworn, that he cannot be brought
up now without peril to his life."
Mr. CURWOOD.—" Your Lordships respite the re-
cognizance till next term ?"
Lord ELLENBOROUGH-4g If the Attorney general
wished it, we would give you only a Rule to shew
cause why it should not be respited ; if not, take your
Rule. Mr. Attorney General,' would you wish that
they should take only a Rule to shew cause r
Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL--" No, my Lord, I
thini not; in short, I would not interpose any diffi-
culty." •
Lord ELLENSOROUGH—is Then let the recognis-
ance be respited."
FEENGH pnlsoNgßs.—THE RING V. HENRY PROCTER.
The defendant, a very respectable young ,an, was
brought up to receive the sentence of the Court, he
having pleaded guilty to an indictment for assisting
three Ft each Officers, prisoners of war; to make their
escape to France, viz :--.Colonel Bouis, Lieutenant-
Colonel.Weikel, and Lieutenant Mervin. [For the
circumstances of this case, see the STAR of October
the 19th.]
There were two affidavits put in on the part of the
prosecution : one of Mr. Adams of the Transport
Office, and the other of Wood, a Messenger of that
Office, describing under what circumstances the pri-
soner was apprehended.
The prisoner also put in- an affidavit, setting forth, i
that he went to France in the year 1803, at the time,
of peace, on a commercial speculation : when war
was resumed, he was made a prisoner of, and suffered
much for several years, until he became acquainted
with a French Lady, whom he married ; after which,
although a prisoner, his situation was much amelio;
rated : he sighed for his native country, and was offer-.
ed an opportunity of escaping, if he gave his promise
that he would try, on his arriving in this country, to
assist Lieut. Mervin to make his escape, he being the
brother of the person who made him the offer, which
he accepted ; he pledged his honour he wbuld release
Lieutenant Mervin by every means in his power, and
it was in compliance with that promise that he had in-
curred the displeasure of his country and its laws--
He Ead been seven years imprisoned in France, and
trusted that if the Court would take his situation
under consideration in the view of mercy, that they
1 would extend their clemency .to him. .
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL,)" It must. °ecrr to
your Lordships, that what is urged in the defendant's
affidavit can be no :excuse for a crime like this;
and what will be the consequente if this crime, by
the lenity of your Lordships, is allowed to be repeat-
ed ? If this offence is not cut off in its bud, it is im...i
possible to say where it may end. It is not my wish
to say any thing that will enlarge the criminality of
the defendant, but leave him to your Lordships to
deal with him-as you may think meet."
Mr. /21.tnitv-44 It falls to rpy lot to speak in behalf
of the unfortunate prisoner.. He went to France in the
tittle of.perfect peace ;, and, against the laws of all ci-
vilized nations, he was made a prisoner of by the
Tyrant of the Continent : by his marriage his situa-
LIVERPOOL THEATRE RIOTERS. Con was somewhat amelicyted, but he was still a
The Defendants in this case were brought up to Prisoner ; and-when he had ar-dawn of hope of liberty,
receiveudgment. obliged to enter into a conditen, that if he escaped
Mr. Justice Gaon, in pronounting sentence, stated he would attempt the escape of anotherhe did
that the Defendants were aow called on to answer for escape, came to this country, and saw ihe.persou by