Star.
London, England, 1818-05-29 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, MAY 29.
In the case of the Opera House, the Vice-CttAN•
Mune refused four exceptions to the Master's Re-
port, in addition to the three which were referred back
to the Master for reconsideration. The case stands
over till the Master makes a new Report.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, MAY as.
THE SING V. ARTHUR THISTLEWOOD.
At the sitting of the Court the ATTORNEY GENE.. '
RAL moved the judgment of the Court upon the de-
fendant ; and Mr. Justice BAYLEY read the report of
the trial.
Being called upon by the Court, the defendant said
he had no affidavits to offer, but, after a trial so un-
precedented, he felt it his duty to protest against the
judgment of the Court. Ile had now been incarcera-
ted 17 weeks, and as Lord Sidmouth had declared
that his object was only personal security, he (the de-
fendant) could assure the Court that his Lordship
was now perfectly safe : he felt no animosity against
his Lordship ; but the challenge had been produced
by the distresses he had sustained, and the loss of
1801. through the instrumentality, as he conceived, of
the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL then addressed a few
observations to the Court, reading the challenge,
which, he said, could not bear two interpretations.—
'The object of Lord Sidmouth was not merely perso-
nal but official, for the protection not of himself
only, but of all future Secretaries of State. Lord
Sidmouth had acted merely magisterially tow.irds
the defendant is the supposed provocation, and in the
same character he called for the judgment of the
Court. His Lordship's purpose was not that a heavy
sentence should be pronounced, but that others should
be deterred from conduct so illegal and unjustifiable
as that the defendant had pursued.
Lordships consulted for some minutes, after
which Mr. Justice BAYLEY proceeded to pass the sen-
tence of the Court. He observed, that not the least
doubt could be entertained either of the regularity
of the trial, or of the propriety of the verdict • great
indulgence had been shewn in allowing the defendant
to withdraw his plea of Guilty, and at that time he
knew that his trial would take place after Easter
Term ; that was sufficient notice to induce him to
summon his witnesses, and to take the other steps ne-
cessary for his defence ; on the trial he had not made
any suggestion of surprise or want of preparations
until after tt had so far proceeded that it could not be
' postponed. The offence was of a high description ;
' there was, probably, no personal animosity or perso-
nal knowledge, either on the part of the defendant or
of his Lordship ; but, if the defendant had been in-
jurzd, the Courts of Justice were open to him, and
the poorest and the lowest man had not only an equal
right to. but an equal chance of, redress as the richest
and the highest ; such was the happy condition of the
subjects of Great Britain. No man, therefore, could
• become his own a• enger; for, if he made the attempt
• to break the peace of society, he was liable to a se-
vere punishment. With all the particular circum-
stances leading to this challenge the Conn was
wholly unacquainted; but, if •he had thought pru•
dent, the defendant might have entered into explana-
• than on ..ffi tavit. The sentence wfs that the defen-
dant should be imp! isnned in Horsham jail for 12
. months, and at the end oF his confinement, should
give security to keep•the peace, hims.lf in 3001. and
i.wo sureties in 1501. each.