Star.
London, England, 1819-11-08 00:00:00

LATV INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF EING's BENcm, NOVEMBER 6.
This being the first day of Michaelmas Term, all
the Judges, except Mr. Justice listimisosatfasted with
the LORD CHANCR4LOR. The Learned Judge last
mentioned sat at ten o'clock to take bail in the

Duchy Court. About one o'clock the LORD CHAN.

cat. Lon, and the other Judges, came down in state to
Westminster Hall, and took their seats in their Courts

respectively.

CRIMINAL. INFORMATION AGAINST MR. AND MRS.

CAR IA LE.
Mr. GURNEY, on being called on in turn, rose and
moved for leave to file a Criminal Information against
Richard Carlile, and Charlotte, his wife, for the pub-
lication of a blasphemous libel. He reminded the
Court that Richard Carlile was tried at the late Sit-

tings at Guildhall, for the publication of two blas-
phemous libels, of which he was convicted. The first
. _ _ _

was a book called The Age of Reason, in Three Parts.
In the course of his defence he read the whole

of that infamous book, pa: titular parts only of which
had been selected fur prosecution. This course of
proceeding had been adopted for the purpose of pro-
ducing, by such means, a more extended publication
of the horrible contents of the libellous work ; for be
(Mr. Gurney) had an affidavit, which stated, that
some time since Mr. Cathie had published an adver-
tisement, announcing that " The Mock Trial (for so
' he had libelled the administration of public justice)
of Mr. Carlile will be published in sheets, at two-
pence each ;" and added, that in so many sheets the
report of the four days trial would be completed, and
concluded with announcing, that " the first sheet is
now ready for delivery. The publication will pro-
ceed till it is completed." From this it appeared,
that the work was coming out, sheet by sheet, at the
price of two-pence. The affidavit further stated, that
Mr. Carlile being its cust'dy, in consequence of the
convictions already mentioned, Mrs. Carlile, his wife,
WAS personally carrying on the business of his shop,
and was selling, with her own hands, these portions
of her husband's trial. Now, if this mode of pro-
ceeding succeeded, it would he a complete receipt
for the most extensive publication of the trials in the
cheapest possible way, and thus the blasphemous
book, which was the subject of prosecution, would
find its way to the Public, in a channel infinitely
more mischievous, because capable of wider circula-
tion, than it was before. The Learned Counsel said
he had five numbers of the trial, the last three of
which contained the whole of the first part of The
Age of Reason ; and thus, for the price of sixpence,
the Public were supplied with the poisonous matter it
contained. The mode of publication by sheets evi-
dently sheaved that the object of the party was to
send forth the libel, of which he had been convicted,
in a more saleable shape, by reason of its cheapness,
and, at the same time, of repeating the dangeroes
offence he had committed. By assuming this shape,
it was more within the reach of those who were most

likely to be affected by its profligate tendency, than
in that in which it was originally published. The in-
formation upon which the publisher had been con-
victed, set forth only certain passages of the blasphe-
mous book, although almost every page of it might
have formed the subject of an information. He (Zr.
Gurney) need not remind the Lord Chief Justice, that
very many other passages might have been inserted
in the information than ,those which were set forth,
and which had only been selected by way of sample;
but his Lordship and the Jury were compelled to
endure the painful and disgusting task of sitting nine
hours, which were employed by the defendant in the
recital of the whole work. He (Mr. Gurney) hoped
it would not be requisite for him to state any thing
in recommendation, or in support of his present mo-
tion ; still less to offer any argument upon the ques-
tion) whether the libel thus republished by these per-
sons, was of a pernicious and blasphemous tendency?
He submitted to the Court, that it was impossible
these persons, under pretence of publishing the trial,
could be at liberty to give a wider circulation to
those libels which were the subject of the trial. If
this were permitted, it would open the door to the
grossest abuses. In the case of an obscene publica-
tion, passages only of which might be selected for
prosecution, the publisher, on his trial, might chose
to read the whole of it, and thus, under pretence of
defending. himself, adopt such a mode of republish-
ing the whole work, under another form, and thereby
aggravate the mischief for which he was called upcn
to answer. In the present case, passages only had
been selected for prosecution, but the defendant had
thought proper to read the whole of the work, in his .
defence, for the purpose of affording himself the op-
portunity of republishing it in a new shape. This
could not he endured, and no rule of law could sanc-
tion the proceeding. Judges had repeatedly inti-
mated that such a republication was unlawful, and
was the subject of criminal prosecution. This had
been so declared in the case of the King v. Williams,
who was convicted for publishing this very libel.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—I believe the Judges inti-
mated the same opinion
.in the case of the King v.
Creivey.
Mr. GURNEY said, that was a very different case
froth the present. It had been frequently declared
incidentally, by different Judges, that this was an
offence punishable criminally. Expressions of this
kind had repeatedly fallen from the Court within his
(Mr•. Gurney's) own knowledge and experience. On
mcre occasions than one Lord Ellenborough had so
expressed himself; and so had the present Chief Jus-
tice. Lord Ellenborough had said, that it would be
a great abuse of the privilege allowed to a defendant,
if he were at liberty to re-publish the libel, which he
had been permitted to read in his defence.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—Courts of Justice are often
obliged to hear publications, as matter of evidence,.
in ttie administration of justice, which it would be
extrejneltimproper to rc-publish in a printed form.
Mr. GURNEY—Your Lordships are often con-
demned in Court to bear the most painful and dis-
gusting publications. This may be necessary for the
purposes of justice, but it cannot be neces,at y that a
man should do this, for the purpose of afterwards re-
publishing, sheet by sheet, the libellous work for
which he is prosecuted, under the pretence of calling
it a report of his trial. Such is the I.resent casts, and
it is attended with this aggravating circumstance,
that being published in numbers, the PUbl:c may
buy the libellous work without the trial. That is tte
way in whichthe trial is published% I thought it dem-

14

I -"

; Y
i
t

• 1.; I ''''
. 1 •
E
4
•., t .
1 ' '
'- - •
• I
%
• ,
• 'I; ''
<1 1
. 4
c •
. 4 1..
i '.l'.. : i' . •
1 :
4
1 e
. ° 1 •1 I I
. . 1 1,
1 •
( •
rl, . f
•I''' 11 11 .
. • . ;, , , '
F
- 1 •`'l
.. . ,
. , •
;•, 'll4,
ei,,
• •
• • al ,
,
,-. •.. ~
.1 ' ,
. : b... 3
' I 1 •
I 1 •
i 1 , •
4 .
1„.
. $.
it • •
i
' I
J , i
, . 1 Ii;
. 4

•

~
~,r .

I

..•

nary to present this motion to your Lordships at the
earliest possible period, in order, if possible, to check
the publication of this trial; which, if it is permitted
to proceed, will defeat all the purposes of justice ; for.
by going on with this publication, whilst this man is
remaining in prison, his wife, who is selling it, will
render nugatory all the objects of the prosecution.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—You state that some of these
numbers were sold by the wife ?
Mr. GURNEY—AII of them, my Lord.
CHIEF JUSTICE—AII during the time the husband
was in prison?
Mr. GURNEY-4 so suggested to the Court.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY-1 hen what personal part in
the transaction do you impute to the husband?
Mr. GURNEY—I do not impute any personal part
in it to the husband, upon these affidavits ; but I
submit to the Court, that the circumstance of the
wife being the person selling in the husband's shop,
that is prinia.facie evidence against the husband, that
the sale is taking place with his knowledge and pri-
vity. It is sufficient, at least, to call upon the hus-
band to answer this application.
Mr. Justice BEST—You have no evidence that the
husband was personally connected with the sale?
Mr. 'Justice FIAYLEY—You have laid sufficient
ground for the motion against the wife, but not
against the husband. This being a misdemeanour,
it will not lie in the wife's mouth to say that she is
acting under the influence of her husband. There is
that distinction between a case of misdemeanour and
a case of felony. The evidence you have against the
wife may he sufficient against her in a misdemeanour,
but not sufficient against the husband. In some cases
of felony, the personal presence of the husband may
exempt the wife from responsibility, but not so here,
nor in cases of murder, nor in case of keeping a dis-
orderly house, for which the husband may not be
answerable with the wife.

The CHIEF JUSTICE—The ordinary course in ap-
rlications of this kind, in founding a motion for a
criminal information, is to shew that the party pro-
ceeded against has personally acted in the offence
bra ught before the Court. It must be shewn, that
the party to whom the motion applies, has per-
: malty acted. I don't find that your affidavits bring
home that proof to Richard Carlile; for I understand
you to state, that at the time of this publication he
was not at home, but a pi isoner.
Mr. GURNLY—The place of publication is his
hortie.

The CIIIEF JUSTICE—That may be ; but in a man's
absence many things may take place in his shop,
without his knowledge.
Mr. GunxEY—The business is carried on for his
benefit, and his name is over the door.
Mr. Justice BENT—'Brat may be, but he may not
know what is doing in his house. If he is answerable
for ghat is done in his absence, be may have no
meals of defence.

Mr. GURNEY—I submit, that inasmuch as his name
is over the door, the business being carried on in his
name and in his house, that is pnnta facie evidence
to call upon him to answer this Rule. There have
been cases where a person so circumstanced has been
called upon to shew whether or not the publication
has taken place with his knowledge. 1 submit them
is sufficient in this case to call upon Mr. Carlile to
shew whether it has or has not been done with his
consent. This he may do afterwards when the Rule
is granted.
The Otto, Justice—You must shew that the libel
has been printed and published by Richard Cable.
Mr. Justice BAT!. EY—Does your affidavit state that
the republication has taken place under his direction ?
The Cum JusTica—Or that it is sold fur his be-
nefit?

Mr. Guatgrz—lf a person announces in a letter
that he intends such a publication, aad it afterwards
tikes place in his shop, that. is reasonable proof that
it is done by his directions, and for his benefit. We
have Mr. Carfile's letter to that effect.
'Mr. Justice lia.rLer —There is a vast deal of dif-
ference between what is conducted in a shop to which
a man has access, and that which is done at a time
when he is prevented access by legal imprisonment.'
Mr. Justice llotnorn—This is not the case of a
publication prior to imprisonment, when the party
may be supposed to have access to his shop; but it
is a publication at a time When he is wholly debarred
access by imprisonment. . _

The CurEF .IvsrtCE—l think you can take the rule
against the wife only.
Mr. GURNEY having sat down, rose again, and sug-
gested that the libel had the name of Richard Ca.thle
to it, which, he contended, was sufficient evidence to
chew that he was the printer. . • .

•
The enter it:ems—That may be; but his name
may be used without his consent or knowledge.
This is not the ordinary case, where 2 person has ac-
cess to a shop where his business is carried on. This
is the case of a person who has no access to his shop
at the time of publication.
Rule to shew cause refused against Mr. Carlite, but
granted against his wife.

JURISDICTION OF THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
Mr. JONATHAN EVANS moved for a writ of prohi-
bitidu to be directed to the LONDCHANCELLOR, sitting
in Bankruptcy, for the purpose of preventing the exe-
cution of an order made by him on the 14th of July
lag. He observed, that it was not necessary to
trouble the Court with cases, in order to prove that
a Court of Bankruptcy was one of limited jurisdic-
tion, and that their Lordships had the power of grant-
ing the prohibition for which he moved. This mo-
tion was supported by a case in Lord Raymond's
Reports, as well as by many others he could cite.'
Ile appeared on the part of John Cowan, one of the
a.signees in a commission of bankruptcy issued against
a person of the name of Riclunond. The facts of the
case were these :—The commission was issued against
Richmond on the "28th of February, 1815. On the
Ist of March, in the same year, the messenger under
that commission took possession of a farm called
• Collin Dean Farm, supposed to belong to the bank-
rupt. On the 18th of March, which was seventeen
days afterwards, John Cowan was elected an assignee
to the estate of the bankrupt, together with a person
named Ileapy. Immediately subsequent to this elec-
tion, a person of the name of Mary Ann Hughes
presented a petition to the Vice-Chancellor, claiming
the farm, and praying that it might be delivered up
to her. Soon afterwards the Vice-Chancellor directed
au inquiry to be made by the Commissioners as to.

the validity of this claim. The bankrupt. on his ex-
amination stated; that his debts were L5OOO, and that
he had only £lOO to pay them. On the 7th of April
an action was brought against the assignees, to try
• the validity of the petitioning creditors debt. On
the 18th of May the Commissioners reported that
the farm had really been purchased by Richmond.
The action brought by the bankrupt to try the vali-
dity of the petitioning creditor's debt, was tried be-
fore Lord Ellenborough, and his Lordship's opinion
was that the debt was not a good one. A petition was
in consequence presented to the Lord Chancellor to
supersede the commission. On the 12th of July
Mary Hughes presented another petition, praying
that the messenger of bankrupts might be ordered to
quit possession. On the 31st of July an action of
trespass was brought by Mary Ann Hughes, which
was also tried before Lord Ellenborough. His Lord-
ship, on that occasion, said, that there was no ques-
tion either of law or equity in the case, and that if the
parties were instructed to prosecute for perjury, he
would commit the three persons who were sworn
in support of the action immediately. The plaintiff
was non-suited. On the Sth of April, 1816, the
Vice-Chancellor ordered all the petitions of Mary
Ann Hughes to stand discharged with costs; and
that the Commissioners' report should be confirmed.
On the 16th of May, 1816, Mary Ann Hughes pre-
sented a petition to the Lord Chancellor, praying that
the order of the Vice-Chancellor should be discharged,
and that the assignees should be ordered to deliver
up such part of the estate and effects, alluded to in
the former petitions, as remained in their hands. On
the 23d of August, 1816, a petition was presented
(rum Richmond, praying that the commission against
him should be superseded, and a writ of sypersedeas
was issued accordingly. On the 27th of January,
1817, Mary Ann Hughes presented a further petition,
praying that the order of the Vice-Chancellor might
be rev iewed,when the Lord Chancellor ordered that the
parties should proceed to a trial at law in the Common
I'leas, upon an issue to try whether Mary Ann Hughes
was beneficially interested in the farm in question or not.
On that trial the Jury found their verdict in favour
of her beneficial interest. On the 12th of December,
1817, the Lord Chancellor ordered Cowan and Heapy,
together with Wells, the auctioneer, to deliver to
Mary Ann Hughes, au account of the valve of the
leases, stock, and of the farm so found to be her pro-
perty. About this time the bankrupt took the benefit
of the Insolvent Act. On the 21th of July, 1818,
Mary Ann Hughes died, when the case was revised
in the name of her executors. After various proceed-
ings had taken place before the Master, on the 14411
of July, 1819, the Lord Chancellor ordered, that the
sum of 1:2107. Is. 6d. should be paid-to A. B. Rich-
mond, the executor of Mary Ann Hughes, by Cowan,
Heapy, and Wells, or one of them, on or before the
first day of the present Term. This was the short
abstract of the facts of the case; and it was of this
order of the Lori Chancellor which he (Mr. Evans)
cotTylained.
The Clime Jusrsca.-.What is your objection ?
hfr.Evices—bly objection is, that the Lord Chan-
cellor has no jurisdiction.
The CHIRP JUSTIcIt--Why ?
Mr. Erma—Because the Lord Chancellor's juris-
diction is limited to the bankrupt and the bankrupt's
effects, In the Acts recognising the power of the
Lord Chancellor in bankruptcy affairs, not one word
is said of giving him power over any other property.
Mr. Justice ISAvi.nr—lf the Assignees, under co-
lour of a commission, wrongfully seize goods the
property of another, is it not in the power of the
Lord Chancellor to restore them ?

Mr. EvAss—l submit that he has no such power.
The remedy is by an action of trespass.
The CHlLiJuirrica—You state that he has a juris-
diction over the bankrupt and his goods. This is a
decision, I apprehend, as to whether the goods seized
were the property of the bankrupt or not ?
Mr. Evens—Your Lordship will recollect that the
bankruptcy in this instance had been superseded, and
the order of the Lord Chancellor was neither more
nor less than assuming a right to assess damages
which could only be properly decided by an action
of trespass. Mr. Evans then generally proceeded to
contend, and to cite authorities in support of his ar-
gument, that the Lord Chancellor, sitting in bank
ruptcy, had no power to make any order with regard
to property which was not the property of a bank-
rapt. In this case, the bankruptcy had been super-.
ceded. A verdict of a Court of Law had decided
that the property in question was the property of
Mrs. Hughes, and therefore the proper course to pur-
'sue would have been to bring an action of trespass.

•The CHIEF JusTicE, after consultation with his.
brother Judges, said, that, as at present advised, he
was of opinion that the Lord Chancellor had juris-
diition 'over Assignees, and over property taken un-
der a commission of bankruptcy. It was a question,
however, of great importance, .and he would look
into the Statute upon the subject, and see if there
was any reason which could justify him in changing
his opinion. If he entertained any doubt upon the
point, he would hear Mr. Evans further. At present
he was clearly of opinion that the Lord Chancellor
had jurisdiction.
Mr. EvANs—The order is to pay the money this day.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—I cannot help that.
ELECTION OF SIR C. WOLSELEY.
The Judges having risen to depart, and three of
them having left the Court, Major Cartwright, who
had been sitting in the Jury Box the whole of the
day, caught the attention of Mr. Justice BAYLEY.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—I understand, Sir, you ap-
pear here to plead to an indictment ?
Major CARTWRIGIM.—Yes, my Lord.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—The proper course will be
to have the indictment read. Do you wish to have
it read ?

Major CARTWRICIIIT—If your Lordship pleases.
Mr. Dealtry, the Clerk of the Crown Office, pro-
ceeded to read the indictment preferred at the last.
Warwickshire Assizes, against George Edmonds,
Charles Maddocks, John Cartwright, Thomas Jona-
than Wooler, and William Griffin Lewis, for having
maliciously and unlawfully conspired together, with
others, whose names are unknown, 12th July last, at
Birmingham, to nominate, elect, and apppint a Mem-
berto serve in the Commons House of Parliament,
without being duly authorised so to do. The indict-
ment, which was of considerable length, having=beets
brought to a conclusion,- Mr. Dealtry addressed.thii
venerable Major, who 'food upon the floor the whole,

time, and said—u How say you ? Are you Guilty,l
or Not Guilty r
Major CARTWRIGHT—Not Guilty.
The Major then quitted the Court.
MR. HUNT.
Mr. HUNT now rose, and addressing Mr. Justice
Bayley as he was quitting the Court, said—My Ltird,
I wish to ask you 1 question.
Mr. Justice BAYLEY—No, I cannot hear you. My
business requires that I should be in another place.
Mr. HUNT—I have bcen waiting here all day.

Mr. Justice BAYLEY then left die Court.
Mr. Hunt was accompanied by Mr. Moorhouse.
Mr. Knight, of Manchester, was in Court.
OLD BAILEY SESSIONS.

The Sessions were on Saturday brought to a con-
clusion,_ when the following prisoners received judg-
ment of death :
John Booth, the clerk at the General Post-office, for secret-
ing letters containing Bank notes; Anne Smith, for privately
'paling in a shop ; Emma Davis, for robbing on the highway;
Ann Pearson, for stealing in a dwelling-house ; John Church,
for house-breaking; John Markham, for a crime not to be
named; James Stubbs, for forging Bank of England notes;
Thomas IlPDermott, for a similar offence; T. Wiltlish, for a
forgery on the Dover Bank, and John Martin, for house-
breaking.
Thirteen were ordered to be transported for life:
nineteen for 14 years ; and 68 for seven years ; among
the latter was Cashbolde the poor man convicted of
stealing lead, of the value of 9d. and who begged
as a favour to be sent out of the country.
A considerable number of prisoners who were con-
victed during the Sessions were sentenced to different
perk is of imprisonment in Newgate and the House
of Correction, and some incorrigible young rogues
were treated with the additional punishment of being
whipped. —The Sessions were then adjourned, in the
usual form, until Monda), December 2.

•
! '
•
l' 4
• ,o.
f .
•

IL