Star.
London, England, 1821-02-22 00:00:00

~~.-~

.

•

•-

.. t.r

NU ISE' MOS..

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

.. • -
COURT OF ZING'S BENCH, FEBRUARY 11.
THE KING V. HUNT.
was an indictment against the defendant,' as
twitter of a Newspaper, called The Examiner, for
sma inserted in that Paper, on the 24th of July,
lea reflecting on the House of Commons. The
pi was written in strong language; and, after com-
seadag on the manner in which the House was con-
good, described it as rather meriting the character
kody of criminals, than as guardians of the Public.
The ATTORNIT-GINERAL opened the case to the
jury, and commented on the character and evil ten-
amcy of such a publication as that now under the
cimideration -of the Jury. The Learned Counsel,
deer erging all the usual topics, proceeded to call
d►e mall evidence, to prove the publication, and that
the defendant was the Proprietor of the Paper in
ck it appeared.
Ibei-tendant read a long written paper as his de-
fuse ill which he contended, that his motive in this
pablicatiou was pure, and dictated by a wish to pro-
mote the, pabbe good. He denied that he had any
masciots intention in this publication, or that he ia-
mbi& tc, lid or bring the House of Commons into
contempt. He only spoke of them as they bad been
spoken of before, by Burke, For, and other great
met ; and be adverted to the avowed practicre of buy-
ing tad Jahns seats in Parliament, and to the con-
that 61 j.erd Castlereagh .an¢ others, as a proof of
die truth of the assertions contained in the alleged
lib& He concluded by declaring, he should confi-
de* trust himself in the bands of his Jurors for
do* justice to his motives, and for an acquittal.

The Cat JUSTICa summed up, and commented
a the publication and its probable ettect ; and de-
tined himself decidedly of opiniowthat it was a libel.
• The Jury retkcd, and lazier oemg out some time,
Maude and put a question to his Lordship, as to the
niteisitY of malice existing to constitute the offence.
The Goias JINITICI said, absolute malice need not
ivjegadi a man's motive for an act must be infer-
theeffectlikely to be produced by it.
lbe Jury 'again retired, and in a few minutes re-
Voiolwith a verdict of-Guilty.
FLEICHIIR alias 'FRANKLIN, AND
DLIMIS
la *at ansindimment against the defendants for
bag ptamodo with intent to render the people di:-
agitated with the Government, and inciting them to
Aim and revok, the paiticulars of which have been
groxily detailed in our Police proceedings. Fletcher
init.
_absconded, did not plead ; O'Brien pleaded
Not iftiftr. Mr. Piga/M stalcd theca* to the Jury.
• Fmk, the printer, had known Fletcher some tithe,
its ander the name of Oliver, and afterwards of
ilstchim fa 1818 and. 181.9, he printed for him a
umber of seditious some of which were
tend, among them was the celebrated one issued at ;
the period of the Smithfield Meeting, that to the un-
Electors of Westminster, and a number
Others equally inflammatory. Fletcher brought
fat the manttscripts,pnd took away the printed bills.
hcallects a person coming with Fletcher in 4 hack-
aptheach. Witness did not then know him, but now
bows him to be Mr. O'Brien. Among the-hand-
ills printed by him for Fletcher, were the Letter to
kr Francis Bnrdett's Jury, the Addressof the Queen's
%a Committee, &c. The manuscripts of all the
with osensception, were taken away by Fletcher.
-Witness communicated the circumstances to Mr.

---
ilosua, who came to his house, and-he poluted out
Artdier to him

Cross-examined.—Did not know Mr. Fletcher by
iit name till after Mr. Pearson had him in custody ;
blue that time he supposed his name was Oliver.
riusess would not have printed these bills had he
lot supposed himself secure, for Fletcher told him
ie was safe, as he was employed by Lord Bathurst
ad Mr. Canning. Witness was imprisoned for pub-
hhing a libel in 1809.; he was not at that time able
re up his employer. Witness had reason to be-
kve the Gentleman who was with Mr. Fletcher, in
Isly hist, was Mr. O'Brien, because he went to where
Kr. O'Brien resided. In conversation with Mr. Pear-
oo, he said, as he had not seen Mr. O'Brien since he
w him in the carriage, it would be right that he
Id see him again before he spoke positively, and
had not seen him since till Monday last.
Several other witnesses were examined, but they
hied to prove Mr. O'Brien's identity; and alter an
piress from Mr. ScAsurra., and a summing tip
has the CHIEF Justice, thelury found the defend-
its—Not Guilty. The cause did not conclude till
early ten o'clock at night.
COURT OF 'COMMON PLEAS, FEBRUARY a

LITCHFIELD V. LITCHFIELD.
This was an issue out of the Conn of Chancery,
td the question to be tried substantially was, whether
*certain written paper, executed by the late William
rtchfield, on the 18th of May, 1813, which pur.,
lined to be his last will, was in the whole and every
Pt the last will of the said deceased W. Litchfield ?
The plaintiff is brother to the testator, who was
armerly an eminent upholsterer in St. Mania's-lane.
?he defendant, who is a minor, is the testator's as-
loal son; the property in dispute amounts to up-
wards of £60,000.
Serjeant LENS stated the plaintiff's case, win
liceght to establish the disputed will made in Ma's 1
1313, in proof of which he called several wiliness. 1
Mr. William Toone, the attorney who dryer ep and
%Messed the but will, stated that he lived at Went-
6111•L_ead was Clerk to the Commissioners for re-
"ommg the Lead Tax, in the years 1812 and 18131
Ilatakent nine months befece the testator's death be
transactions with limits his elkial 'opacity, at
which time the testate? told hies he would get Met
hati
b draw his will bet- did not Ammar& ippli to
'lima. on the 17th of May, 180, bit% Dawson awl
tr. Muchett, two friends of the
lb leitabil'
called
at
and told hint the testator wished =alts wit%