Star.
London, England, 1820-02-28 00:00:00

SEDITIOUS

TIE KING V. ROBERT. *DOKTER.
This defendant, who was tried yesterday and con-
victed, for publishing a Number cif The Republican,
was again tried on a similar charge, for sellin a
different Number of the same publiCation, containing
a Letter, signed" Richard Cathie," and found Guilty.,
THE KING V. JAMES FAINSIIVRY AND JAMES WATLIN.
These defendants, who were also convicted yes-
terday, were subjected to a second prosecution for
publishing another Number of The Republican, but
the ATTortNilli-GENEnAL declined offering any evi-
dence, and accordingly in such case a verdict of Not
Guilty was recorded.

11111 NINO 9. DOLSY.
This...defendant applied to have his. trial postponed,
on the ground of the absence of a material witness:
and the Attorney-General consenting, it was put off,
until the Sittings after next 'Perim.
. TAIL LING V. JOIIBINS ANN RAMS.
In time eases* the SocterroslGnWastaa. Withdrew.
the -records, not being prepared with evidence to
prove the publication of the alleged libels.

- .
FEBRUARY U.
HOULDITCH V. PAIKI*S.
ADOLVilila addressed the Jury. He observed,
that this action syn:brought to-recover 'the value of
a carriage and harlits sold by the plaintiff to the
defendant. The only question would be, 'whether
the defendant was tale for tl:e harness, for the car-
riage had already been paid for. The Learned Coun-
sel stated, that When Mr:Parkins had been elected
to the ()See Of Sheriff, it occurred too hint that a %t-
-riage would be an indispensable acctimpitnithent: As
a carriage could not proceed without harness,, the
litter article Was Of course found necessary. A set
of 'harness, which had once been-the property of-a
foreign Duke, was selected, and-the defendant agreed
to purchase it from Mr. Heulditch for the price of
seventeen guineas. Mr. H. thinking that this harness
would look very bate without some tonament, men.
tioned his opinion to the defendant, who could not
make up his mind upon the subject without some
consideration ; but, as the Lord Mayor's Day was
very near, the plaintiff informed the Sheriff, that if
be did not hear from him in a day or two, the arm-
raents should be provided. The defendant subse-
quently called at the plaintiff's Warehouse and saw
the harness, 'and was very well satisfied with
After a few more observations, the Learned Counsel
proceeded so call, his witnesses.
Wm. Garnor, exansinedly Mr, DowoNo, stated,
that he is employed in the service laiadE
Knows the defendant. Recollects the Wit Tiff cipakbigs
b td.Phig-atre to look at some harness

reided for MM. ?bas *2s in September last.-1
defendant expressed- great satisfaction at the
manner in which the harness was got up. The har-
ness was ornamented with toppings, roses, and ears
bows. The harness, thus ornamented, was after-
wards sent to Mr. Parkins. The charge was £17175.
for the harness as it originally stood, and £l3 for
the new decorations. A few days afterwards the
Sheriff returned the harness,acc oar panied with a letter,
desiring to know by whose order it was sent.
Mr. SCARLITT, for the defendant, said, one story
was good till another was told. At the time the de-
fendant was appoistid Sheriff, he had determined to
look out for a second-hand carriage, and went to thej
plaintiff's to look for one, where he saw the carriage,
in question, and agreed to give £l5O for the carriage
and harness. At this time the plaintiff did not know
that he was bargaining with the Sheriff elect, but af-
terwards discovering that circumstance,, he wished
to change his bargain, and said the carriage was
£l5O without 'harness. Mr. Parkins thinking dif-
ferently, though he consented to take the carriage at
the price, refused to have anything to do with the
harness.—The following witness was then called :
Charles Lawson, examined by Mr. Ifor.r, stated,
rat in September of last year, he had occasion
to call upon Mr. Parkins, and upon hearing that he
hid gone to Mr. Houlditch's, he followed him there.
When arrived there, he enquired for Mr. Parkins ?
One of The Gentlemen present in the warehouse
asked witness who Mr. Parkins was? Witness re-
plied, the Sheriff. What Sheriff ? the Gentleman
inquired. Another Gentleman present ansnered, the
Sheriff of LondOn. Both Gentlemen then 'left him,
and shortly after Mr. Parkins entered_ the shop. 'One
of the Gentlemen above.mensioned bowed to Mr.'
Parkins, and said—" I had not the honour of
knowing that I was serving the Sheriff." They' then
went up stairs, and, upon coming down, Mr. Par-
kins appeared in a passion, and, addressing the Gen-I
tleman, said—" If your brother will assert, upon his
honour, hat the harness was not included in our
bargain, I will relinquish it. I have harness for four
'horses myself." Mr. Parkins turned round to wit-
ness. and said—" Why did you tell them I was
Sheriff ? 1 have been caeated out
_of my harness in

consequence."
Cross-examined by Mr. ADOLPHUS—NO other
person was present. Witness in at present a Cletk to
Mr. Hodges, coal-merchant.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, pointing to the first witness exa-
mined for the prosecution, asked if he was one of the
Gentlemen whom witness had seen in the ware-
hoirse ? Witness thought he was.
William Wall, a boy of fifteen years of age, stated,
that he went to Mr. Parkins at Messrs. Houlditch's;
Mr. Parkins went about some harness ; witness
stated, that Mr. Parkins, at this time, concluded a
bargain with Mr. Houlditch for a chariot and
,cress, for 150 guineas ; Mr. Parkins asked if it was a
four-horse harness ? Mr. Hottlditch replied—" No;
do you. expect to get a four-horse hardens and cha-
riot for 150 guineas ?" This witness confirmed the
account given by the former witness, respecting Mr.
Parkins's declaration, that he would resign the har-
ness, if Mr. Houlditch would declare, upon his ho-,
nour, that the harness had not been included.
John Smith, the keeper of the stables, recollects
the Lord Mayor's-day. This witness proved, that
Mr. Parkins expressed his disapprobation of the
coachmaker's conduct, and ordered Mr. Houlditch's
men to take back the harness.

Joseph Gill stated, that the harness was teturned
the first fine day.
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICZ summed up the evi-
dence, at considerable length, and the Jury returned
a verdict for the defendant.

CASTLEREAUH V. BURDETT AND PLACE.
Mr. CHITTY stated, that the plaintiff in this action
was the Viscount Castlereagh, and the defendants
were Sir Francis Burdett, Bait. and Mr. Place. That
the action was brought by the plaintiff to recover
from the defendants, as two of the inhabitants of the
hundred of Ossulston, the sum of £62, being the
amount of the damage committed on the plaintiff's
house by a riotous assemblage of people, on the
3d of March last, the day of the last Westminster
Election.
The SOLICiTOR-CENERAL mentioned, that it would
be reniembered, that at the last Westminster Elec-
tion,. Mr. Lamb and Mr. Hobhouse were Candidates.
Mr. Lamb on this occasion was successful, and those
who had supported Mr.Hobhouse, feeling chagrined
-at their disappointment, proceeded to the place where
Mr. Lamb's friends were assembled, at the Britith
Coffee-house, in Vockspur-street ; that they there
committed certain outrages, and that a cry was
raised to proceed to the house of Viscount Castle-
reagh. A person on horseback, on hearing the pro-1
posal, had ridden forward to alarm the plaintiff's,
family in St..tatues's.square. In consequence of think]
ere doors were barricadoed, and preparations midi
,to repel the intended attack. A short time after*.
wards, a number of persons came across the square;
and commenced an attack on the plaintiffs house, by
throwing stones at the windows. The stones that
were at first thrown must have been brought from a
tobsiderable distance, as there were none of that de-
scription previously in the square. The rioters had
afterwards made use of large pavement stones, which
they had thrown with great violence against the
door ; a purl of the pavement opposite the house bar.
ing been taken Up for the pUrpose of repairing the;
street. In consequence of the attack, the glass and
wood-work of the windows had been completely de.
'Polished, and the damage, as he should prove by
the Witnesses, amounted to 02.- The action was,
founded on Statute 57 George 111. c. 19, sec. 58, by
which it had been enacted, a That .in every vase
where any house, shop, &c. shall be destroyed or
damaged, &c. by the act or acts of any 'mates or
'tumultuous assembly, that the inhabitants of the city j
or town, if such city or town be in itself a county or
otherwise, or the inhabitants of the hundred in which
such damage shall be don; dtc. shall be liable to
yield full compensation in damages to the persons
injured.° .The present defendants were two of the
'inhAitants of the hundred in-which the damage had
been to emitted on the Sd of March last.
Francis Bappels, the house-steward of his Lord-
ship., was called to give testimony as to the damage.
:hum been committed and Michael O'Brien, gra-
zier, Ind Isaac Derby, carpenter, to depose as to the
-"oust of the damages.
'4(t Twain:on, collector of taxes of the perhh of
`*- deposed, that the houses of the plairttif

' ;IROW.I
. .

,and defbndunts *ere in the parish of St. James 211.1
,Mr. Burchell, acting Under• Sheriff, stated them to
be in the hundred of Ossulston.
Mr. EVANS addressed the Jury for the defendants.
He would not have said anything upon this occa-
sion, had some aspersiOns not been thrown out against
Mr. Hobhouse by the Solicitor-General. He thee■
fore begged it to be understood, that it was rut the
friends or. adherents of Mr. Hobhouse who had been
the authors of the riot, and of the damage which had
ensued in consequence of it.' He said so, that no re- '
port might get abroad to the disadvantage of his
friend, who, he would say, was as honourable a mss
as the Noble Viscount himself
The LORD CRIMP JUSTICE summed up the esti-
11ence, and the Jury gave a verdict for the piaintii4