Star.
London, England, 1820-02-25 00:00:00

L dlr INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCII, FEBRUARY '24.
TILE KING V. HARRIS.
Before the Jury were sworn, three Gentlemen who
had been called into the box, were excused from
serving ; one a clerk ist the Wanoffice. another in
the Treasury, a third in the King's Wut ks.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL barely explained that
this was exactly the same libel, published by Christo-
pher Harris, of which. Mr. Watling had been just be-
fore convicted. The reading of it would be quite
sufficient to satisfy them.
Lewis Lew is proved the purchase of the copy exhi-
bited, from the defendant, at 10, Broad-court, Bow-
street.—The letter was read.
The defendant then read a defence to the Jury. It
set out with stating, that although the Attorney,
General had addressed them with so much eloquence,
theie was more sophistry than sound truth in his
speech. If selling was a publication in common law,
it was not so in common sense. As a retail dealer,
he had no malicious intention. They bad no evidence
that he had ever read or known the contents of this
letter. In fact, it was impossible for him to read
the publications he sold, as there were people to buy
them, and take them out of his hands as soon as he
got them. Any coffee-house keeper might, on the
same principle, be prosecuted for selling a Govei nment
Paper. In common prosecutions,. whatever was al-
leged as libel must be of or concerning the plaintiff;
here the matters charged were of and concerning the
Magistrates, Yeomanry, and others ; that was, they
were concerning other persons than the plaintiff.--
His object had solely been to support his wife and
family. Ile sold religious books as well as others.
The ATTORNEY•GENERAL replied, and
The Lotto CHIEF JUSTICE summed up in nearly
. .

Mr. Hoacomne presented the Report of this Corn- the same terms as in the former case, and the Jury
mittee. • It stated, that in consequence of the active instantly found him Guilty. He was committed to
exertions of the several Parishes of the City against the custody oldie Marshal. .
the Bill brought in last Session by the Fire-Act THE KING V. SHORTER.
Clergy, for an increase of their income, they-had in- Robert Shorter, an active and intelligent youth,
curved very considerable expense, about afi'9B6 of but an extremely ioaudicious Counsel, bustled very
which was unliquidated. The Committee therefore much on the floor of the Court as soon as his trial
recommended that the Court do. order tbe'sum of was called on. Ile insisted upon a Physician in St.
200 guineas to •be paid by the proper Officer, to Luke's serving on the Jury, after the Court and the
assist those Parishes. Mr. Ilurcombe observed, that' Counsel for the prosecution had consented to his
if the Court agreed to this, he should also move, withdrawing. lie objected to. two who had served
that the thanks of the Court be given to Thomas on the preceding Jury, and the SOLICITOR-fixNERAL
Saaders, Esq. a Member of the Court, for his active consented that they should withdraw.
and able exertions( in resisting the demands of the The SOLICITOR-GENERAL addressed the Jury (the
Clergy on that occasion. It was necessary on this ATTORNEY-GENERAL haying previously left the
occasion for him to state, that in the year 1802, an Court), and said he could not Jo better than follow
application had been made to Parliament by the the example of the Attorney-General, and leave them
Fir; Act Clergy for an increase of their incomes.--, to judge, from the publication itself; whether it was
Parliament, on that occasion, gave them an addition a libel or not. The Law Officers would not have dis-
in many instances of double their incomes, and in charged their duty faithfully to the Public. if they
others of more, so as to create the expense to the had not brought a criminal prosecution against those,
City of £12,241, besides Glebe-houses. In 1819, who sold such publications. .
they applied for a further increase; and the Court Benjamin Morris proved the purchase of the pub-
could scarcely believe that this increase intended to lication from the defendant; in \Vych-street. I.le was
place a burden on the City of not less than £25,584; sent from Bow-street Office for the purpose of get;
and indeed he had heard from one of those Rev. Gen- ting a copy.—The letter was read a third time.
tlemen, that if they had got this sum, it was intended The defendant said, he was only twenty-one years
to make a further application, in order to have their of age, yet he had devoted eight yettrs to the study
income the full 2s. 91 is the pound on the rent of of law. He quoted Pr. Johnson's definition of " pub-
! houses.. Finding that this was the intention-of the 101" and " sell." .He then read extracts from News-
! Clergy, the several Parishes wok it up, and, ably papers, which reprobated prosecutions against igno-
Isupported by the indepeadent conduct of the Corp- rant and poor venders of Newspapers. Ile had shut
ration, they most wairnly and effectually resisted up his shop as soon as the informations wen. filed
ithe imposition. Aldermen \Vood, Waithman, and against him. . •
• Thorp, and another v,•oi thy Member, had exerted Robert Alexander gave the defendant a very good
themselves against this.obnoxious measure ; but Sir character.
William Curtis had done all in his power to induce The Soineoron-GENECAL said, it was not. a fact
Parliament to lay this impost upon his fellow-citi- that any bilk had been preferred before the Middle-
zens. Mr. Hurcombe moved that the Report, which sex Grand Jury, and . thrown out. As soon as the
recommended that the sum of £2lO should be given Attorney-General saw the atrocious .nature of the
to assist in defraying the expenses attending the pio- publication, be felt it has duty to file a criminal in
ceeJings in Parliament, should be received. fot maim. An information was the sanze.to the de-
Mr. GRIFFITHS seconded the motion. Ile Ittrizthd . feadant as an indictment ; time was noi greatei c•A-