Star.
London, England, 1820-06-19 00:00:00

. t,

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, JUNE 17.
THE KING V. SIR FRANCIS BURDETT.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, at the sitting of the
Court, stated, that he had to shew cause against a
Rule obtained in this case by Mr. Phillips.
Mr. Justice BEST read his notes of the-trial, and
repeated the points upon which he had left the cause
to the Jury.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL contended, that if any
part of the charge had been made out, that partial
proof would be sufficient to sustain the verdict. If
it had been satisfactorily established (which could
not be denied) that Sir Francis Burdett was the
author of the letter in question, and that the letter
had been written in the county of Leicester, the ver-
dict must inevitably stand. The author of the libel
was guilty of an offence as well as the publisher ;
and where a man was charged with writing and com-
posing, it was necessary to lay the venue in that
county in which the act of composing or writing had
been performed. In the case of the King v. Lambe,
which would be found in Coke, it had been held
that the contriver:the procurer, and the publisher of
a libel, were each and all guilty of an offence ; and
Lord Holt, in a subsequent case, the King v. Bere,
had hell that the writer was the contriver. Upon the
authority of those cases he should contend that the
composing a libel was in itself an offence ; and if the
publishing only constituted the offence, as had been
contended by the Counsel for the defendant, to what
end were the writing and composing charged in the-
indictment ? In the case of the King v. Knell, which
occurred in the time of George 11. it had been held
that the mere printing of a libel was, without publi-
cation, an offence per se; and the case of the seven
Bishops, which had been cited by the other side,
formed an authority directly against them, for the
evidence there was that the writing took place in
Surrey ; and no evidence appeared of publication in
Middlesex, where the venur was laid ; but if there
had been evidence of writing in Middlesex, that would
have been sufficient, and such had evidently been the
impression of the Judges. It had been said by the
defendant's Counsel, that the proposition which he
was maintaining would go to the length of saying
that a man who wrote a libel and kept it in his desk
would be punishable. Was there anything very ex-
traordinary in that? What was the law in cases of
forgery ? It had been held that a man who com-
mitted a forgery, and kept it in his desk, without any
publication at all, was guilty of felony; and in the
case of the King v. Crocker, a man had been con-
victed under such circumstances. The third and last
ground of the Learned Gentleman's opposition was—
that, taking the offence in question to be of a com-
pound nature, granting that the publication, which
formed one part of the offence, had been committed
in county A, and the writing or composing, which
formed the other part, in county B, it was competent
to the prosecutors to lay the venue in either
_county.
In support of this position, he would put the case of
a windmill in one county overhanging a highway in
another, and annoying the passengers on that high-
way. In indicting the mill as ha nuisance, it would
be necessary to prove the building in one county,
and the nuisance in another. In which county should
the venue be laid? Doubtless it might be laid' in
either. The Attorney-General then concluded by de-
claring, that he esteemed the publication of a libel as
no farther important than as it served to shew the a.:i-
mus with which it was written ; and that nothing but
the anxiety which the case had excited could -have
induced him to trespass so long on the valuable time
of the Court.
Mr. DENSIAN observed, that the Attorney-General
had entirely overlooked one of the grounds upon
which the present motion had beta addressed to the
Court—that evidence of the truth of the publication
had been rejected.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that paint so
clear, that he would not argue it.
The LORD CHIEF Aimee and Mr. Justice BEST
were of the same opinion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL followed on the part of
the Crown.
Mr. SerjeantVa trona ri declined to address the Court.
Mr. SCARLET?, at considerable length, supported
the Rule. The duty which, as a professional man,
he owed to the defendant, was scarcely inferior, the
Learned Gentleman said, to the duty which, in the
present case, he owed to the Public. He trembled
even at the thought that there was a bare possibility
that the Court might concur in the arguments of the
Attorney-General. The principles which the Attor-
ney-General had broached on that day had slept in
darkness for fifty years, and certainly he had never
expected to have heard such principles attempted to
be revived. That attempt, however, had been made,
and made with a degree of energy and zeal which
could not have been surpassed even in those fatal
times which had witnessed the operation of those
principles—in times which England had survived,
and which he had hoped that England had forgotten.
The Learned Counsel then proceeded to discuss the
Roman definition of libel, and deprecated ref
to the civil law, as to a code constructed upon a sys-
tem of casuistry, and fit only to torture the minds
and consciences of those who should rely upon it..
If the Learned Attorney-General chose to go back to
Lambe's case, and to the other cases which he had
qucted, he must take—not the particular parts of
those cases which were likely to serve his present,
argument—he must take the cases as they stood for
better or for worse. Would the Learned Gentleman
agree, that in future no man who merely published a
libel should beheld guilty, unless it could be proved that
he knew it tobe a libel at the time when he published it?
Such a confession would be contrary to all modern
decisions; for, however fit it might be that a differ-
ence should be established between the contriver and
the mere publisher, no such difference had ever been
admitted. If the argument on the other side was
approved by the Court, the Attorney-General would
say next, that any man who found a libel became'
subject to punishment, unless be destroyed it upon
the spot, or carried it before a Magistrate. Autho-
rity even for that position might be found in Lord
Coke. According to the case of .the King v. Payne,
if one man wrote a libellous epigram, and another
took a copy of it and kept it for his private amuse-
ment, the man who so kept the copy would be
punishable, because the thing might at some time
afterwards be published. It would be about as rea-
sonable to indict a man for keeping a gun in his

. -
house, because at some "future period a person might
be shot with k. According to the_same case, if one
man wrote a libel, and another approhd it, the ap-
prover Was guilty. This case was really worth the
attention of his Learned Friend the Attorney-General;
it created a new class of offenders. • The principle
laid down by Lord Holt, in the case of the King v.
Bere, was no less detestable. According to that case,
a man might purchase a book in a shop, and place
it in his closet, and if it were found that that book'
contained matter, libelous upon any hutean creature,
the onus of proving an innocent intention was thrown
upon the unhappy possessor. What a position was
this ! There was not, perhaps, a book in the libraries,
of their Lordships, not even the Prayer-book itself,
from which something libellous might not be ex-
tracted—libellous upon some individual, some go-
vernment, or some system. The very notes which
he (Mr. Scarlett) was then taking might, in due time,
if not destroyed, become libellous. They might, by
accident, be locked up among his papers, and, after
his death, his posterity might be prosecuted for pos-
sessing them.
The LORD Cutry-Jusvcs.—Those are cases, Mr.
Scarlett, which could not now be quoted in any Court
of Justice. You must be aware that they would not
be listened to.

Mr.SCARLETT observed that those cases occurred,
in point of date, iramediateli previous to the cases
of the King v. Payne, and the King v. Bere, which
had been relied upon by the Attorney-Generil.
Mr. Justice BEST.—But then the Revolution came
between.

Mr. SCARLITT, at half-past three o'clock, was pro-
ceeding to cite some decisions of Lord Chief-Justice
Jefferies, and of Lord Chief-Justice Scroggs, which
he thought might have biassed the mind of Lord
Holt in his decision upon the case of the King r.
Bere, when the Court adjourned the further argu-
ment of the question to a future day.
• CRIM. CON.
SHERIFFS COURT, RED LION-SQUARE.
W. MILLER V. R. HAWKER.

• Mr. CAMPBELL opened the pleadings in this case.
It was an action brought by the plaintiff against the
defendant, for criminal conversation with his wife.—
The damages were laid at £10,000; and the de-
fendant had suffered judgment to go by default.
Mr. SCARLIMT said, that the plaintiff, Mr. Miller,
was a gentleman of considerable landed estate in the
county of Gloucester. The defendant, Mr. Hawker,
was the son of an opulent dyer, resident in the same
neighbourhood, and at the time when he became
acquainted with the plaintiff, was a Fellow of one of
the Colleges of the University of Oxford. He had
the advantage of Mr. Miller as to years, but to no
very considerable extent. Mr. Miller, in 1808, be-
came acquainted with his present wife. She was a
lady of noble descent, of gmt beauty, and, he might
add, highly accomplished. She was the niece of a
Noble Lord whom he saw preknt (Lord Egremont),
and, as far as illustrious birth and connexions went,
she had everything to recommend her. When the
plaintiff was first introduced to her, he was 24 or 25
years of age. He met her at the house of her father;
the Hon. Mr. Wyndham. In point of family, she
was certainly a most desirable match for Mr. Miller:
bin her fortune did not correspond with her situa-
tion in lifer This, however, made no difference in
the maid of an affectionate suitor, and an opportu-
nity was thus afforded him of shewing his attach.
ment, by making her a most ample and liberal set-
tlement. In the year 1809, they were married at
the house of the father of the lady, in Montagu-place.
Mr. Edward Bloxam, the Solicitor of the plaintiff,
produced an attested copy of the regkster of the mar-
riage of the plaintiff with his wife, at the parish of
St. George, Bloomsbury, in 1809.
Mr. Nash. Pearce Wathen deposed as follows :—I
am one of the trustees under the marriage settle-
ment_ executed by the plaintiff. When I first saw
Mrs. Miller she was about 20 years of age, a beauti-
ful and accomplished woman; Mr. Miller was about
26. I had frequent opportunities of, seeing them
after their marriage; my late wife and I visited
them ; Mr. Miller was a kind and attentive husband.
Mr. Miller is a gentleman of considerable fortune in
Gloucestershire ; he lived in style, and kept a re-
spectable establishment. Mrs. Miller had a horse
and a carriage for her own use, and was treated by
her husband with every indulgence. I know little of
Mr. Hawker: he is a Gloucestershire man. I know
his father; he is a man of opulence in trade. I went
to Scotland; and, while there, Mr. and Mrs. Miller
paid me a visit. They appeared to me to live hap-
pily together.
Cross-examined by Mr. Setjeant• Vitusuraw.—l
knew that differences had arisen between Mr. Miller
and his wife. I have heard Mr. Miller speak of those
differences. They were three or four years married
when they separated. Mrs. Miller left her husband,
but they were brought together again by the mutual
interference of friends. I never was present when
Mr. Miller took up a carving-knife to his lady. The
father of Mr. Hawker is a dyer; he has two daugh-
ters by a second wife.
Re-examined.—The separation did not arise from
jealousy. I understood that she went to her father,
in the Isle of Man, who sent her back to Mr. Miller.
When she returned, Mr. Miller continued to be fond
of her, and was happy at her return.
The Rev. Richard Huntley stated, that a second
separation had taken place, but that there was no
impeachment of the lady's honour, and that Mr.
Miller continued fond of her.

John Ford examined.—l am Mr. Miller's butler.
I have been so for four years. Mr. Hawker, the de-
fendant, began his ;tusks about a year and a half or
two years ago. He was at first accompanied by his
stepmother and sisters. His visits afterwards became
more frequent. He was received by Mr. Miller with
hospitality and kindness. On the 4th of February
last, Me. Hawker was on a visit at my master's house.
At eleven o'clock in the forenoon he was in bed.—
My master had gone out hunting with Mr. Paul, who
was also visiting in the house. Immediately after
Mr. Miller went out, I observed Mrs. Miller leave
the drawing-room, and go up stairs to Mr. Hawker's
bed-room; I saw her go in and shut the door; I
cannot say how long she remained. Mr. Hawker had
ordered his servant nbt to call him till two o'clock;
he had a cup of tea taken up to him. Mr. Hawker
remained on that visit till the 9th or 10th of Fe-
bruary ;he came again on the 4th of March. Mr.
Hawker and Mr. and Mrs. Miller went out riding ;
when they returned, Mr. Miller went to his dressing-


mom,. which was trelow stairs ; Mr. Hivrker and
Mrs: Miller went along the passage together, and up
stairs towards.the bed-room of the former. In about
ten minutes or a quarter of an hour I observed
Mrs. Miller pass very quickly. as from Mr. Haw-
ker's bed-room to her own room ; my suspicion was .
excited, and after Mr. Hawker had left his room I
went up to it, and saw marks on the side of the bed
as if two persons had been there. On March 6,
which was the day of the Election of Members for
Gloucester, Mr. Miller went to attend the Election.
Mr. Hawker and Mrs. Miller remained at home.—
They came down to breakfast about eleven o'clock,
and continued the rest of the morning in the draw-
ing-room alone; the blinds were down ; the weather
was dull. I had occasion to go to the drawing-room
about half-past twelve. I tapped at the door, and
opened it immediately without waiting. I heard a
rustling of dress. Mrs. Miller was standing at a
little distance from Mr. Hawker. She was much
confused, blushed uncommonly, and trembled. Mr.
Hawker was sitting in a chair with his back to me.
I did net mention these circumstances to my master .
till the 7th or Bth of March.
In cross-examination.—After I had stated to Mr.
Miller what I had seen, Mrs. Miller stopped in the
house about three weeks. She had a separate apart-
ment. She had made a great many attempts to come
to my master, but he did everything in his power to
prevent the communication. They had separate beds
in different parts of the house until Mrs. Miller was
taken away by her friends.
Mr. Edward Bloxam again examined.—l„,was first
applied to on this affair on the 22d or 23d of March.
Mrs. Miller was then in the house. I advised Mr.
Miller to continue her in his house until her friends
could be induced to receive her, or to point out a
proper place for her reception. There was a good
deal of correspondence by letters with her friends
(her cousin, Lord Ducie, and Lady Carnarvon) on
the subject. Her own friends having refused to re- .
ceive her, I advised Mr. Miller to find a place for
her, which he did. I think it was on the 30th of
April she went. I consulted Mr. Campbell on the
subject, and I acted by his aivice.
Maria Woodcock.--I was Lady's maid to Mrs.
Miller for three years. I remember when my mis-
tress went toWeymouth, at the latter end of August,
1819.—[The witness described circumstances confir-
matory of the butler's suspicions.]—On the 10th of
March it was my mistress's intention to have quitted
my master. My master went to Mr. Shepherd's on
the 10th of March. On his return he had a separate
bed, and never slept with my mistress afterwards.—
My mistress remained in the house three weeks after-
wards. She made several attempts to get to my
master. She saw him once or twice. My mistress
wrote a great deal. I refused to convey the letters to
the post. I knew she packed up all her jewels on the
11th or 12th of March, and addressed them to Mr.
Hawker, at Oxford. By my mistress's desire I hid
them in one of the best beds ; but my master found
it out, and insisted upon having them. Ido not
know that Mr. or Mrs. Miller disagreed. WS:Miller
idways did as she liked.
Cross-examined.—My master was fond of my mis-
tress, and was very indulgent; she did as she liked,
Mrs. Miller was very affectionate to her husband
when I 'first lived with them ; after Mr. Hawker be-
came intimate in the house, I thought I observed a
great difference in my mistress's conduct towards
her, husband.
Mr. Serjeant VAVGIIAN then addressed the Jury
on the part of the defendant. He did not mean, on
the part of his unhappy client, to deny that the
charge imputed to him was of a serious nature; he
came there not to justify his conduct, but as much
as possible to diminish that weight of aggravation
which had been attempted to be heaped upon him.
Men, as well as women, had their weak moments ;
and unfortunately the defendant, in an unguarded
moment, forgot the duty which he owed to himself
as well as to the plaintiff. For this he entertained
the sincerest regret. He meant not to utter a syllable
to the prejudice of the plaintiff or his wife, and was
willing to submit himself to that verdict which the
Jury, upon a conscientious view of the whole facts,
might feel themselves called upon to give. It was
said he had been a Fellow of one of the Colleges at
Oxford. This had been the case, but he had resigned
that appointment, and was, in fact, possessed of no
property whatever. He was aware of the maxim,
" That the man who could not pay in his purse must
pay in his person." He was ready to subscribe to its
wisdom ; but he conceived in the present instance
that temperate, and not vindictive damages, would
best meet the eel justice of the case.
The Jury, after some consideration, assessed the
damages at Twelve Hundr,ed Pomade.

Monday, the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh
unanimously agreed to petition the Board of Trade
to remove the restrictions on the trade to China and
the East Indies, in order that British vessels may be
placed on an equal footing with those of foreign coun-
tries. The Petition, which is extremely well drawn.
up, we hope to be 'able to give at length to-morrow.
Some detached parties of troops throughout Spain
have been guilty of overturning the stones erected in
commemoration cf the Constitution Yes pietres Cos-
stitutionsella). A Madrid Paper says, that hitherto
" these stones have been made of trood, which renders
their destruction extremely- easy I" There are a great '
many Hibernians in Spain.
Peturmuumsn.—Yesterday, a young man undertook, on the
Walthantstow-road, to walk 48 miles in ten hours. He COM.
mewed his task at three o'clock in the morning, and completed
It in eight hours and 55 minutes. The wager was for at2o.
• Sonars Des:rm.—Au awful circumstance occurred yesterday
morning in Bethnal-green Church. A National School, for the
education Of 2000 children, has lately been establiched in that
Pariah, and the Bono, of Loirsom undertook to preach the first
Charity Sermon for the Benefit of the Institution. • The Master
of the School, Mr. Howe, bid been indefatigable in preparing
the children for the occasion, and just before the Psalms com-
menced, he attempted to rise, but fell down dead in the pew.
Coan_geenneas, Maas-taxa, Jim 19.—Our market closed
heavily on Friday for 'Wheat, having had large arrivals in the
course of the week, for which the demand was very inadequate.
The supply this morning was considerable from Beset, Kent,
and &drolle, and last Monday's prices were with difficulty eb.
Pined eves for the finest samples from the former county, and
all oiler sorts were neatly unsaleable, at a decline of 2a. per qr.
The arrivals of Oats continue exceedingly abundant, the sale of
width article was very dull, at a decline of Is. per it Fine
fresh Harkey being scarce, fully supports the prices of this day.
as'onight. In Deans, Peas, and other articles, no alteration.
Satmeemco Maaxxv, Jose 19.-13.ef, 4a. Od. td a.. Od. pee
stone of Sat ; Mopes, 4a 6d. to.ss. rid. Vial. as. Oriao ds. Od.
Pork, Nod. to oo.og. Lamb, ea.lod. to Os. 10d. Catdest Market
Beasts, 4100 ; Calves, 250; Sheep and Lambs, 21,000; per, 220.

-,f,