Star.
London, England, 1811-02-07 00:00:00

With the Arronthre•CertintAes eatnnittnicnemn to
the Court. He was very glad that the fourniation
of the fact which had excited their displeasure was
now withdrawn.
FE'S. 6.-CRIMINAL INFORUATISV.
Mr. ATTORNSY Gr•raanL moved the Court for a
rule to shew cause why a criminal information should
not be filed against Mr. John Hornbrook, surgeon of
Tavistock, in the county of Bedford, for a gross in-
sult offered to Pinnock Carpenter, Esq. a justice of
the PeAce in the saki county. lie moved it upon the
affidavit of his client, which stated, among other things,
that the mother of a young girl, named Mary Lan-
`den, who had been bound apprentice as a servant
`to Mr. Hornbrook, having made a eon plaint to Mr.
Carpenter, as the Magistrate of the District, of ill-
usage her child had sustained in Mr. H.'s service, he
(Mr. Carpenter) made an order for her better treat-
ment. Before he had taken the girl's deposition, he
interrogated her as to the nature of an oath, and find-
ing her sensible of its most important import, hint
generally ignorant of religious information, he di-
rected a Bible to be purchased for her, out of his own
private purse, and ordered her a pair of shoes from
the same fund, finding her without that article of
wearing apparel. One of the complaints charged by
the girl's mother against Mr. Hornbrook, being that
he had violated her daughter's chastity, she was ex-
amined strictly to that fact, but she completely de-
nied it. Soon after 'this transaction, one of the pa-
rish officers brougin the girl again before the Magis-
trate, on discovering that she was pregnant. She
then confessed that Mr. Hornbrook was the author

of her disgrace, apd declared the reason she denied
that circumstance before was, because she did not
know of her then situation, and she was anxious to
hide her own shame, as well as that of Mr. Horn-
brook. Upon this discovery, Mr. Carpenter thought
'it necessary to adopt the usual proceedings on such
,t)ecasions ; but, unwilling to hurt the feelings, or un-
'guardedly expose Mr. Hornbrook's situation to his fa-
fy, he wrote a letter to him, in his own hand-veri-
ehtg, acquainting him of the charge exhibited against
him, and begged his appearance before him ; or that
he would give proper satisfaction to the Parish Of.
&yrs for the maintenance of the child, when bortt4
`No notice being taken of this letter, he was obliged
to issue his warrant, and not until then did Mr. Horn:
brook make his appearance. Soon after this a par;
01 was received by Mr. Carpenter, accompanied by
,a letter, written by Mr. Hornbrook, in which he-
stated, hat having recently read a well-written pam-
phlet on the nature of an oath, he had taken the li.
berry of sending it to him (Mr. Carpenter) for his
consideration and perusal, more especially in conse.
quence of what had recently passed before him, on
the subject of a young woman, who had falsely sworn
a child to him. The letter then proceeded to com-
ment upon the conduct of Mr. Carpenter, in giving
the girl a Bible. It observed, that however conver-
sant he might be in the ditties of the Christian Re-
ligion, a few serious words from the Justice would
have had more effect upon a girl in her situation of
life, and would have produced better consequences ;
"but," said he, " the Bible was accompanied by a
pair of shoes. In some countries, and in some minds,
these gifts would have been construed into bribes."—
! After accusing the Magistrate of injustice, eat! A dis-
I to "the law of evidence and the nature of aa
oath, in the first place, by making his order without
the presence of the person accused ; and in the se-
cond place, of receiving the testintbny of such a wit-
ness as the girl, against a respectable member of so-
ciety, after she had before declared, upon her oath,
that she had no such connection with the party at-
cused, the letter concluded by a canting lecture, as
the learned Attorney-General called it, upon the re-
ligious and moral duties of a Magistrate. All these
circumstances, the learned Gentleman contended,
went to shew that Mr. Hornbrook had intended to
insult, most grossly, this respectable Magistrate, whose
dignity and respectability, he said, if it were not up-
,held by the proper punishment of this individual, no
respectable Gentleman in the country would take
upon himself the important and arduous duties of a
Magistrate.
Sir SIMON LE BLANC—The hand-writing is sworn
to, I suppose ?
ATTORNEY-GENERAL—II is, my Lord.
Lord ELLlNnonoumr—As this is the case of a Ma-
gistrate we cannot refuse your application. Take a
Rule to shew cause.
HARRISON V. KING.
A Rule had been obtained a few days ago, calling
upon the Plaintiff to show cause why the writ of ca. sa.
in this cause, should not be set aside, and the sum of
£l2OO, lodged in the hands of the Sheriff, be returned
to the defendant, or so much money as really appeared I
due to the plaintiff (after deducting what had before;
been paid him,) to be retained in the hands of the
Sheriff, and thence paid over to the plaintiff; and oq.
Tuesday the Attorney-General shewed cause against
it ; but he admitted that, as the plaintiff had already
obtained no less titan 81,851, he thought, in strict
equity, he was entitled to no more than the difference
between that and SHOO,• the amount of his claim by
a verdict obtained for defamation, together with such
costs as were due to him, which, in the whole, ap-
peared to be £317. 12s. 4d.
• Lord ELLENBOROCGII said, " certainly that was as
much as in justice he had a right to seek. He had
breught an action against the Sheriff to obtain that 1
which his verdict for slander had given him, and whe-
ther
one party or another paid it, whether the Sheriff
by his own hands, or through the hands of the de-,
fendant himself, (as appeared now to be the case) it I
WAS one and the same thing. His Lordship also
thought that as the defendant was obliged to come
with this 'application, he ought to be allowed his costs
for it.--Rule absolute as to the restraining of £317
12s. 4d. for the use of the plaintiff, in the hands of the,
Sheriff, instead of £l2OO.
TILE KING V. JOHN KING.
The defendant being in Court, the COMMON SEE-
JEANT moved for a Rule to shew cause why there
should not be a new trial. Our readers may recollect
that Mr. Harrison obtained a verdict against the de-
fendant for slll5OO damages, for a malicious charge
of perjury, &c. To stay the effect of this verdict, the
defendant moved for an injunction in the Conn of
Chancery, which was granted on the 6th of April, to
stay the issuing of any execution on the judgment.
'On the llth, however, the Sheriff levied on the de
fendant's goods, by virtue of a writ of jf. fa. K;
on this moved for,and obtained an attacment ar
Harrison, and swore that go writ Wu