Star.
London, England, 1820-12-12 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF HMO's BENCH, DECEMBER 9.
MARTINERE V. MACKAY AND WILE.

Mr. ADOLPHUS stated, that this action was brought
by the plaintiff, a young woman twenty-five years of
age, against the defendants, General Mackay and
his Lady, to recover damages for injurious words
spoken by Mrs, Mackay, for which the General was
answerable.

Mary hies was servant to Mrs.Levie, who resides
at West End, Hampstead • she was lady's maid.—
She took a note to Mrs. Mackay from her mistress.
It was about Mary Martinere. She asked where
Mary was to be found? Mrs. Mackay said, "I do
not think the young woman would suit your mis-
tress ; I have missed different articles—wine, cam-
bric, &c." When the witness returned, she told her
mistress what had passed, and Mary was not hired.
Mrs. Levie, wife of a solicitor, said she had known
Mary Martinere. In September last she inquired
her character, and, finding it satisfactory, engaged
her at fourteen guineas a-year. In consequence of
what Mary Jones told her, she did not take the plain-
tiff. She received the character from Mrs. Adolphus.
She did not learn from Mrs. Adolphus that the plain-
tiff had gone by the name of Cunningham ; that she
was a married woman, and had a child.
H. Martinere, brother to the plaintiff, went with
his sister to the house of General Mackay on the 4th
of October. They went into the parlour. Mrs.
Mackay said his sister was a notorious thief. The
words were " I have missed ten pounds worth of
things since she has been in my service; I have lost
five pounds worth of cambric, and five pounds'
worth of other thirgs. I will call the men-servants,
and I dare say they have some of my property in
their pockets."
T. Jones, servant to T. Winter, Esq. St. James's-
street, deposed, that he went for the plaintiff's trunk.
He saw it opened, and Mrs. Mackay took notice of a
pAir of silk stockings. She said it was no wonder Mary
had such fine things ; if she robbed every person as
she had robbed her, she might easily get them.
A handkerchief was detained, as the property of
a Miss Beeton.

The plaintiff's Attorney stated, that the handker-,
chief was returned to him by the defendants.
Mr. DENMAN addressed the Jury for the de-
fendants, and called Miss Becton, who proved that
t'.c plaintiff, in a conversation she had with Mrs.
Mackay in the kitchen, admitted that she received
some tea, and a bottle of wine, from another servant
in the family, named Anne. The wine was drank
a:nong the servants in the kitchen.
The Jury then returned a verdict for the plaintiff,
Damages £5O, costs, 40s.

DECEMBER 11.
WRIGHT V. COBBETT.

This action was brought by Mr. Wright against
Mr. Cobbett, to recover a compensation for damages,
for an injury his character had sustained from seve•
ral gross, false, and malicious libels published by the
defendant in the Political Registers of the date of
.3:101111 y 4, 1317 ; March 6, 1819 ; and January 6,
13=:0 ; in V:h1C11 he described the defendant as a
wretch wEom he intended to hold up to infamy the
first orportu.iity—an associate with Cleary in fabri-1
cating letters and Rise vouchers—a person who he
•Vad ottea said would be hanged for forgery, and '
whom he had cautioned to beware the jest did not
become a prophecy,
.Btc.

The Jut). liavini been sworn, the defendant stated
that he meant to withdravi the plea of justification,
and stand upon the general issue.
The CHIEF JUSTICE observed, that theslea could
not be withdrawn in point of fox in, but e defend.
ant perhaps meant to say, be would offer no evidence
in justiii -ation.
Mr. Cobbett.—lf your Lordship wishes, I will.
rate my reasons.

CHILI? Ju.Trrea.—lt is not necessary at present.—
You will have another opportunity for that.
Mr. SGARLETT, as Counsel for Mr. Wright, stated
the case to the Jury. The plaintiff, Mr. Wright, was
recommended to him as a person of the highest
honour—one who was e.teemed by all who knew
him—a person to whom, in the whole course of his
life, fraud had never been imputed, except by the
defendant. Mr. Wright was known as having given
to the Public several works of great labour and uti-
lity—The Parliamentary Debates, Parliamentary
History, and State Trials. The defendant, Mr. Cob-
bett, had been many years known to the Public.—
He had become celebrated by his writings iu all
Parts of the world where the English language was
known. Whether his talents were directed to good
or evil, he should leave mankind to determme.—
Under the pretence of patriotism there was hardly
any public character who had not occasionally been
the object of his attack. To the honour of Mr.
Wright, he was the first to bring this great libeller
before the Public. Mr. Scarlett then detailed the
circumstances attending the transactions between the,
parties up to the exposition of Cobbett's letter re-'
specting Hunt. The Learned Counsel observed, that,
he should make out the libels to the satisfaction of,
the Jury, and then they would say what damages
a man ought to receive for so gross an attack on his
character.

Thomas Dolby proved that he published the Regis-
ter for the defendant. An action being brought by
Mr. Wright, the defendant said he would justify all
he had written.
Mr. John Reeves stated, that when the defendant
was prosecuted for a libel in 1810, he authorised him
to make an offer of giving up the Register, if he was
not called up for judgment. The witness did com-
municate the offer to the late Mr. Perceval, and also
to Mr. Yorke.

The Registers containing the alleged libels were
then put in and read.
Mr. Paal stated his belief, that the libel, speaking
of a wretch whose infamy was not to be equalled
by Jonathan Wild, applied to the plaintiff.
Mr. Adams, one of Sir Francis Burdett's Commit-
tee, saw the letter, written by the defendant in 1818,
respecting Hunt. The witness recommended the
reading of the letter by Cleary on the hustings, in
4818. The whole of the documents having been read,
Mr. Cobbett entered upon his defence. He began
by observing, that the proverb forbidding the cob-
bler to go beyond his last, might be extremely ap-
plicable, as well as useful, to Lawyers. If Mr. Scar-
lett had not gone beyond his brief, a great deal of

time would have been saved to the Inry. The plea
of justification being abandoned, the plaintiff's Coun-
sel might hive come at once to the question of gene-
ral issue; but he had not thought fit to do so. Mr.
Cobbett then proceeded at considerable length to
complain of the introduction of his private letters
into the present cause, and entered into a detail of
his various transactions with Mr. Wright, and into
an exposition of the cause of his original acquaint-
ance with that Gentleman. He denied that he had
received a loan of £2O from Mr. Wright, on account
of any want of money on his own part; spoke of the
plaintiff as having lived in a state of absolute de-
pendence, even for food and raiment, upon him (Mr.
Cobbett); and of his having afterwards, during the
time when he conducted the sale of the Register,
lived in a style of splendour and extravagance to
which he (Mr. Cobbett) himself had no pretensions.
Mr. Cobbett next proceeded to state his reasons for,
having removed the bones of Thomas Paine from
America to this country. He had not taken that
course from any admiration of the irreligious princi-
ples of Paine, or from any fellow-feeling with him
in his ideas of the advantagenf a Republican Govern-
ment. Indeed, he (Mr. Cobbett) had ever held a
Republican Government to be unsuited to the genius
of England. Under a Republican Government,
which -he had materially served, Paine had been re-
fused even Christian burial ; and one of his principal
objects in bringing the relics of that man to this
country had been, to shew the People of England
how completely all public. spirit and all public virtue
were destroyed by Republican Governments. The
defendant went on to account for his having first jus-
tified, and afterwards abandoned, his plea of justifi-
cation. Instructions for that plea had been delivered
to his Attorney, at a time when he was deeply en-
gaged with business of more interest, and when he
was not aware of the precise documents which would
be necessary for him to support that plea. He had
power to prove all that he had said against the
plaintiff, and ten times more; and whatever course
the present action might take, that proof-should, in
proper time, be forthcoming ; but it was not ready
now. He well understood, that against no man but
himself would the present action have been brought.
Ile knew the political feeling which the plaintiff
trusted to. The Jury had been told that he had li-
belled Sir Francis Burdett, and it was hoped that the
Jury would visit that libel upon him in the damages
which they might give for the present. He trusted,
however, that they would do no such thing, and he
was sure that no man would despise more heartily
than the Hon. Baronet himself, such a miserable at-
tempt to pander to their prejudices. lie still con-
tended, that the mutilation of a letter .virtually
amounted to a forgery of that letter. Even Dr.
Franklin, having made an improper use of some let-
ters obtained from the Govetner of Massachusetts,
had been called a thief by Lord Rosslyn, at the Bar
of the House of" Commons. Mr. Cobbett then re-
marked upon the evidence which -had been adduced
by the plaintiff, and intimated to the Jury the ground
upon which he proposed to rest his defence—that
ground being simply this:—that it was his son Wil-
liam, and not himself, who had been the publisher of
the libels in question, and that a considerable por-
tion of the matter complained of in the Registcr of the
6th of March, 1819, had been written by his sons
IVillianfand John. He then called

William Clement, who deposed that the Political
Register, in ISIS, was legally published by William'
Cobbett, jun. In the beginning of 1917, witness pub-
lkhed the Register. Uitness kept his accounts with
William Cobbett, kin. He settled his accounts with'
the son ; but always considered the father as respon-
sible. He considered the father the proprietor of the
Resister, though not legally so.
In his cross-examination, witness admitted that be
had never treated with the son, but as the agent of
the father. The father's name was entered in his
books, although he settled accounts with the son.
Before Mr. Cobbett went to America, witness gave
bills to a considerable amount for his use. 'Those
bills were given in anticipation of the proceeds which,
were to arise from the rale of the Register. -
Charles Preston, Clerk in the Stamp-office, pro-
duced an affidavit of William Cobbett, jun. dated s:h
of January, 1816, stating himself to be sole proprie-
tor of the Political Register, and another of the 25th
of the same month, in the same year, stating himself
to be printer, publisher, and sole proprietor.
William Cobbett, jun. was next called. The ma-
terial part of this witness's evidence went to the ques-
tion whether he or his father was in truth the pro.
prietor of the Paper? The witness swore, that the
property of the Paper was made over to him by his
father, and that his father received from him a salary
as Editor. That salary varied from time to time,
from thirty-five or forty guineas a week to L'3so per
month. Witness was bona fide proprietor of the,
Paper. He frequently made alterations in the mat-
ter transmitted by his father, and made most' 'Mate-
rial alterations in that part of the Register of' che 6th
of March, 1819, which alluded to the plaintiff.
In his cross-examination, witness admitted that he
paid his father no consideration for the assignment
of the Paper, and that he re-assigned it without re-
ceiving any consideration. During the time that the
Paper was the property of witness, his father had not
the power at will to resume it; but, of course, if he
had withdrawn his writing, the shadow only would
have been left to witness.

Mr. John Cobbett, another of defendant's sons, de-
posed principally to some alterations by him, and by
his brother, in the article of the 6th of March, 1819,
which regarded Mr. Wright, the plaintiff. The al-
terations were made, because the article was not suf-
ficiently bitter.
Mr. SCARLETT, in reply, contended that the whole
course of Mr. Cobbett's defence had been an aggra-
vation of the injury which he had done to plaintiff.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE, in summing up, held
that Mr. William Cobbett, either as bona fide pro-
prietor, or as the Editor of the Political Register,
would be liable for its contents. With respect to
the alterations, if a principal authorized an agent
to make reasonable alterations, then, for the effect
of such reasonable alterations he was still re-
sponsible. It was for the Jury to decide whether the
evidence had brought home to the defendant the
libels in question ? If they were of that opinion, the
line of defence adopted by Mr. Cobbett, if not per-
mitted to weigh in aggravation of damages, would
be a very sufficient bar to any plea in mitigation.
The Jury retired at about a quarter to nine, and

after an absence of one hour and three quarters, re-
turned with a verdict for .the plaintiff—Damages,
Oxa Thowsand Pounds; Costs,. Forty
OLD BAILEY.
Saturday, Mary Singleton was indicted, for utter-
ing a forged £1 note, with intent to defraud the Go-
vernor and Company of the Bank of England.
The prisoner went to a publican, named Chapple, in
Cross-street, Hatton-garden, with a decanter, and
asked for some rum, in payment for which she ten-
dered the note in question ; but being told be could
not give her change, she went out as if to get it. She,,
however, soon returned, and said she could not pro-
cure change. Chapple then gave it her, and she told
him she lived with Mr. Roberts, of2s,Charlesrstreet,
Hatton-garden. A few days after she was taken, in
company with two other women, one of whom was
endeavouring to utter a forged note to a person
named Gay. It was also proved, that about two
months before she uttered to one Gregory a forged.:
note, exactly similar in the plate and wr►tten indorse-
' ments on it to that which she afterwards uttered to
Chapple. To Gregory, however, she gave her true
address ; and, after being in custody a week, was
discharged. Her defence was, that she had taken
the notes in the course of her unfortunate career as a
woman of the town, and that she had been induced
to give a false address in consequence of the trouble
she had been put to in having given her real address
on a former occasion.

A most respectable elderly Lady, named Glover,
a relation of the prisoner, gave her an excellent cha-
racter up to two years ago, when she (the prisoner)
was seduced, and left her service in a state of preg-
nancy. The unfortunate prisoner, having been de-
serted by her seducer, was driven in a state of desti-
tution on the town.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY summed up with his known
humanity ; and the Jury, after retiring for tea mi-
nutes, acquitted her.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY said—" Gentlemen of the
Jury, I have very great satisfaction in telling you,
that the unfortunate prisoner will be rescued from
the dreadful course of life in which she has recently
been plunged. It will be a great pleasure, lam
sure, to you, to be informed that her friends will take
care of her."

The Jury expressed their thanks to his Lordship
for this communication ; awl., his Lordship ordered
the unfortunate girl to be immediately gives up to
her aunt, Mrs. Glover.

M. Hardy and 2: Fullmer, were also acquitted.

Yesterday 26 prisoners were tried, one of whom
was capitally convicted, viz. 7'. Munday, for stealing
a mare, the property of Isaac Franklin.
E. Lewis was indicted for stealing a watch from
J. Power. The prosecutor is an Irishman, and just
arrived in London, when he met the prisoner, who
recommended him to a lodging. There he con-
' trived to steal the watch from the bed's head, while
the prosecutor and his wife were asleep.—Guilty of
stealing to the value of 395. only. .
C. Johnson was indicted for stealing three watch-
seals, the property of J. Scott, from his person.
Mr. Scott was passing through Great Queen-
street, Lincoln's Inn•fields, on the day the St. Giles's
precession was going up with an Address to the
Queen, when the prisoner ran against him, and made
a snatch at his watch-chain, which broke, and he
ran off with the seals. Several witnesses gave the
prisoner a good character.—Verdict, Guilty; and
Mr. Baron GAnnovrtold him that he must expect to
receive sentence of transportation for life.
James M'Nabb and Samuel Mears were capitally
indicted far assaulting Sarah Norris on the highway,
and stealing from her person some articles of a
trifling value.
The prosecutrix, in her examination in chief, stated
;bat she was carrying out beer to some houses in Is-
lington, when she was attacked by the prisoners :
she was pinioned, her mouth stopped, and thrown
on the ground ; she fainted, and when she recovered
found her property gone. On her cross-examina-
tion she admitted that she had said before the Ma-
gistrate that the prisoners were not the men. She
had done so at the suggestion of her father, who told
her that the prosecution would be attended with a
very heavy expense. Being afterwards told that the
expense would fall upon the County, she immediately
swore against the men.
'Mr. Baron GARROW here stopped the case. Al-
though bethought the girl had not done intentionally
wrong, ,yet, upon such evidence, the prisoners could
not be convicted.

A verdict of Not Guilty was instantly pronounced.
William Price stood indicted for a burglary in the
house of J. Wilson, and stealing a quantity of linen,
value £s.—Guilly of stealing, but not of the burglary.
Mr. Baron Gareziow asked him if he had any
means of getting a livelihood if the Court should
pass a lenient sentence upon him ?
The prisoner replied in the negative, and added,
that he was quite friendless.
Mr. Baron GARROW then said, that sentence of
transportation should be passed upon the prisonerpro
forma, and he would send him to the Penitentiary.
James Nelson was indicted for stealing a trunk,
containing a variety of wearing apparel, the pro-
perty of the Earl of Aberdeen. It appeared that the
Noble Earl and his Countess were passing through
Hanover-square, on their return from Brighton, in
November last, when the prisoner and one of his
companions were observed by a Gentleman, of the
name of Bachelor, endeavouring to get possession of
a trunk, which was fastened by patent chains to the'
back of the Noble Earl's travelling carriage. They
effected their object, but the alarm was immediately
given by Mr. Bachelor, and the -prisoner was se-
cured.--Guilty. •
Joseph Ireland was capitally indicted for stealing
a silver watch, the property of Charles Smith, iu his
dwelling-house.—The female servant of the prose-
cutor, deposed that he and his wife were accustomed
to spend the greater part of the day up stairs. On
the day in question Mrs. Smith went down to the
parlour, where the watch was hanging up. In the
evening they had a friend with them, and Mrs.
Smith, wishing to know the hour, found that the
watch was gone. The girl was below stairs that
evening, and having heard a faint knock at the door,
went to open it, when she saw the prisoner, who in-
quired if her master or mistress were at home ? . She
replied that they were not; as she did not wish to
have them interrupted at the time. The prisone
then asked for some milk, and she said she would
let him have' it, expecting, as a matter *of course,

that it would be paid for. She went into the parlour
to get it, and the prisoner followed her. She then
heard the door suddenly shut, and found that
prisoner had disappeared.
The defence set up was an alibi, but the evidence
in support of it was contradictory in the most mate,
rial points. A witness, named Linnet, told a vo:,
which was entirely at variance with the stateme..t
made by the father of the prisoner.—Verdict,
of stealing in a dwelling-house to the value of
Mr. Baron GARROW said, that as this appeared :$
be his first offence, the prisoner should be sent to the
Penitentiary, which might emphatically be termed
the house of mercy. His father should be anew ed 3
visit him at stated intervals, and the duration of Lit
confinement was to depend entirely on his behaviore.
The Learned JUDGE informed the Jury, that this
was the last of the capital cases which were to core
before them.
Henry Brockly was.indicted for stealing from I'4
person of Henry Stowell, a watch, chain, and seak
The prosecutor stated; that he belonged to rle
Bow-street patrol. On the night of the fire in Dram
lane, he was attending there in the execution of Li
duty, when the prisoner snatched his watch from his
fob, but could not succeed in carrying it off, because
it was fastened by a steel chain, which he wore roust
his neck. The fact of the watch being removed front
the place where it was deposited was, according V)
law, sufficient to constitute the offence with whicis
the prisoner 'stood charged. Another witness ccrro.
borated the statement of the prosecutor.
SoMe respectable witnesses who had known Li,
on board the Orwell Indiaman, gave him an exec'.
lent character; but the facts arainst him were ton clear
to admit of any doubt, and he was found Guilty.
In the course of the afternoon, the Grand Jury fcr
the City of London came into Court, and having pc.
seated their Bills. the FORE:SAN addressed the Coln:,
stating, that Mr. 13RowN, the Keeper of Nev-gat,:,
had reffised them the right of visiting the J
Baron Gaanow informed them, that right, al for-
merly claimed, had been considered by the Judg:.,
and that, as the subject would, in all probability, la
brought before them in their judicial capacity, t!;:y
did not think it right to give an extra judicial opinicn.
He would therefore suggest to them, if they th•mat!'t
it necessary, in the performance of their duty, to visit
the prison, to consult proper persons, and adopt
means to have the case legally decided.—The Jury
bowed and retired.

--------
AbOut four o'clock the Grand Jury again entered
the Court, and the Foreman, in the name of CLe
whole of them, handed the following Presentment to
the Judge:
The Presentment of the Grand Jury for the City of London,
at the General Sessions of Oyu' and Terminer, and of tHe
Peace, holden for the City of London, at Justice Hall, in the
Old Bailey, in the said City, on Wednesday, the 6th day of
December, 1820, and continued by adjournment until the 11:k
day of the same month.
" The London Grand Jury, in presenting their last Bill :a
the Court, have great satisfaction in stating, that the Calendar is
unmarked by any. crime of the first magnitude, and contains
very few of great atrocity ; but they regret to add, that the most
flagrant depredations appear to be committed in the streets a:
all hours both by day and night, and which, in their judgment,
might be greatly diminished by an improved system of Police.
" The Jurors further present, that this day, in discharge of
their duty, they went to his Majesty's Jail of Newgate, in order
to inspect its state and condition, and to inquire and ascertain
whether the rules and regulations for the management of the
same were properly attended to, and carried into effect. They
demanded of William Robert Henry Brown, the Keeper of the
said Jail, to be admitted for the above purpose, when the said
William Robert Henry Brown refused to admit them. They,
therefore, present the said William Robert Henry Brown fr:
such refusal, contrary to his duty, as they conceive they have a
right to be admitted into the said Jail for the purposes aforeszid,
especially to examine into its state and condition. —Signed, tee.
Mr. BROWN, the Keeper, refused, on their deznanc'-
ing it as a right, to allow them to inspect the prison ;
but had no objection to shew them very part of
if they would relinquish that claim.

BIRTHS.

At Newport, the Lady of R. Bloxhatn, Esq. Surgeon, of a
daughter.
At Dublin, the Lady of the Rev. Stephen Creagh Sande,
F. T. C. D. of a son and heir.
Thursday, at Gosport, the Lk4y of Capt. Hire, R.N. of a son.
At Henley, the Lady of the Rey. J. G. Buuell, of a son.
At Chichester, on the 10th ult. the Lady of Dr. Burnett,
Physician of the Fleet, of a daughter. - •

MARR]

Thursday last, at Carisbrt;4l6,;;;72, Wm. Hearn, Ifaq. Soli-
citor, Newport, to Miss Bailey, of Carlabrook.
At Limerick, Joseph Gabbett Bourchittr, Esq. of the Royal
Tyrone Militia, to Maria, daughter of the late Thomas Gabbett,
Esq. of that City, Xlderman.
At Colombo, on the sth of July last, William Granville, En.
of his Majesty's Ceylon Civil Service, to Miss Frances Tumours
second daughter of the late Hon. George Tumour.

TIED.

Saturday, in Lower Grosvenor-street, after a long illness,
William Tierney Robarts, Esq. M.P. for St. Alban's.
At Bourdeaux, on the 29th ult. George Ramsden, Esq. late
Lieut.-Colonel in the Grenadier Guards.
Friday, at Batbford, in her 69th year, Mary, relict of the
Rev. Thomas Abdy ANT, M.A. Rector of Cooperaale, Essex.
At the Cape of Good Hope, Lick. Mudge, R.N. Agent fur

CORN:

7, Met

-LANE, a

Bglt ii.

Small Beans ..-.... 34. 366
Tick ditto ...... ...... 266 340
Oats, Potato, 24. 496
--, Poland 23. 976
---- Feed is. Hs
Flour, per Sack SO* .536
Rapeseed, per Last- £4O £42

Wheat, Dantzic s6s 6:3
Baltic Red, Hambro' or
Bremen, Brabant red Rs 541