Star.
London, England, 1827-07-16 00:00:00

purpose as that to which GuMier had app._
chose
.rather to be contented sith,the usostut,
• Upon the whole, therefore, be hop Id his point of s.
. would be determined against him.
The original record of the ptocenlings in the Exchequer Weft I
then put it. • • ~
odes, was
John Bartlett, keeper of the watebbouse, Cevent-p
then called. He wag examined in the Exchequer Court ou the part of
• the defendant, and had produced the book containing the charg At
the watchhouse, which was, " Thomas Robinson, watchman,
charges John Thomas with helot drunk and disorderly in the streets,
and indecently exposing his person." He believed he was
could not
examined
arta the person of Mr. Price, and pointed him out. He
esvearaltat the word " Indecendy," which was loterlined. was put
•in the charge on the night it was made in the watchhouse. Robinson,
„. the watchman, stated in the Court of Exchequer, that he found the
plaintiff in the area of a house, and that he was much in
d 1
liquor ; 1
but in answer to a question from the Magistrate, he said he 4
- not think dot the plaintiff meant to intuit the females at the next
door. and ,*ea that the plaintiff was discharged.
141 r, llkhipend, the clerk in the Bow-street °Bice, noticed a slight:,
- inaccuracy lia the report of his evidence la the Court of Exchequer.
but this was nut thought material.
Mr. Dine Bali, the Magistrate, called: He was examined in the{
Chen of illldloper, end the account given in the Herald rf his svis,
, • ding them:was perfectly correct. The name of Price must bagel
~ • at the office, as it was entered in the hooks. The
iti:hli. for being drunk and disorderly in the streets. He
=rdse
bed Aladin the Vagrant. Act, and certainly, when be dis-
r ekarsolethoplenelf, be cautioned him.
Mr. Sergeant WILDZ -in reply s tid, that after his
. Learned Friend had had his joke, it was his duty to
. recal the attention of the Jury to the real state of the
case before tbem. The course taken by the defendant,
~ however, was perfectly eoasistentwith the system which
. he had adopted from the beginning. that of heaps
injury on the head of the plaintiff. The point of ind,
. cently exposing his personao Females was not made out,
. and, therefore, the justification had entirely failed. They
had talked of the plaintiff's bringing two or three
actions, but what could he do when the libel was se
perseveringly continued? It was- clear that Mr. Price
bad no idea of insulting females, and he - trusted,
they would give him such damages as would stop this
career of calumny.
The LORD Cuts: JUSTICZ, haying stated the nature
of the action and the pleas of justification which the de•
fendant had filed, observed that he had had occasion to
say yesterday that which he should•repeat to the end of
' his life, that it was useful and proper to publish the pro-
" tee-dings of the Superior Courts bi Justice, when those
1 proceedings had been finally decided. Such publications
. were useful, because they almost always contained tuna
• - tars of knowledge that it was advantageous the public
4. should receive. The proceedings in Courts ofJusilce were
' varied in every possible men:ter—tom regarded the bus.
' sines:, some the pleasures, and not a few, he was sorry to
' ' s ry, the vices of life, from all of which 'speculative men
might derive information ; and be agreed with Mr. Jut-
; nice Lawrence, that to such information the public were
entitled, even at the expense of private character, except
such information would shock public morals, or violate
the•rules of public decency. The same reason, however,
would not justify in all cases the publication of Police
Reports, as•they regarded matters that had not been
. finally adjudicated. The early part of charges at Police
- , toffees certainly ought not to be published ; but he was
•••; far from saying, that when those charges were finally
disposed of, they might not (with the reservation to
which he had before alluded) become the fair subject of
. publication. Indeed, if truly reported, he thought they
were advantageous to the public ; for it was most pro.
bable that people would take care not to act with inde-
, Ausuey, it they knew that a day would come on which
.., pat which theyhad done in the dark would be published
-10 the would. Such a check was a most excellent cor-
rection of public morals. If, therefore. this report was
true and eortect, it was not to be complained of. When he
said Correct, he did not mean literally, but substantially
Correct; for, if.literal correctness was in all cases strictly
required. the Reporter would be environed with diffi-
culties which noaecuracy could surmount, and it would
be indeed a mockery (as his Learned Brother Wilde had
strongly observed the other day) to talk of the liberty
of publishing such reports, if they were only tqbe pub-
lithed in the face of such petits. But they ought to be
substantially correct—nothing should. be omitted from
favour—nothing aggravated by malice—every thing
should be fairly stated, and above all, nothing should be
omitted that, went to qualify or deny the charge made
at the Office. His Lordship then summed up the evi-
dence, observing, that drunkenness, though often a p ci-
liation for misconduct, was not an excuse for such in-
decent conduct as that which had been proved against
the plaintiff. The Jury would say, whether the report
was in substance a fair report of what had passed? if
it was, the Jury would find [or the defendant; if not,
their verdict must be for the plaintiff, with such
damages as a person could expect who brought an
action under such circumstances.
The Jury, after a short consultation, returned a ver-
dict for the defendant.
SCOTS 411111 WITS O. LAW SOIL
By agreement between the parties, the Jury were sworn in this
cast, and a verdict was taken for the plaintiff. Damages, &se
/Inthing—Costs, Tarty Shilling'
PREROGATIVE COURT, Jute 14. •
SRITTAIN P. BRITTAIN.
This was a suit to determine the validity of a paper
propounded by Mrs. Mary Brittain, widow of Mr.Josepb
Brittain, which was opposed by a daughter of the de-
ceased by a former marriage. on grounds which im-
puted to the widow and attesting witnesses of the alleged
will, (which was admitted to have been executed in
estrernis, about an hour, more or less, before the death
of the testator) conspiracy, fraud, and perjury; it being
sworn that the deceased was dead when the will was
pretended to be signed, and that one of the witnesses
had admitted such to have been the fact.
The arguments of Dr. Patimateas and Dr. itIISR ADDAMS
• against de paper propounded, and of Dr. Jinn= and Dr. Lyna-
m:on ea the other side, were beard at egnaldetable length ea this
and a preceding Court day.
Sir JOlO,l preceding-Court
now gave sentence. He observed
that the question tutned entirely on the credit of the
witnesses. The deceased died in June, 1825, leaving a
widow and a daughter by a former marriage. The
widow had been twice married before, and had two
sons by one of her former husbands, named Bartholo.
mew, who kept the Crown Inn, at Wantage, Berks.—
'file deceased was a farmer at Sparsholt, about three
miles distant. On their marriage they retained both
farm and inn: Mr. Brittain managed the former, his
wife the latter. • On the death of the husband, these
was a considerable mortgage on the estate, which
the personal property would have gone to exonerate;
so that, if the deceased had died intestate, the whole
of the real estate would have passed to the daugh-
ter, and the widow would have had nothing. The
parties al geared to have' lived on ill terms ; she was
.jealous, and he quarrelsome; on one occasion he had
ittoceeded the lengtloif•kicking his wife ; so that it did
. not 1-pear this It, was a vely submissive husband, or
tenetr the control of his wife. By the will, his real and
. per tonal roped', charged with a legacy to his (laugh-

heaping
of inde-