Star.
London, England, 1810-12-06 00:00:00

-

L 4!!/ IN7ELLIGENCE.

COURT Of JUNG'S BENCH, DEC. S.
A CLTALLENGE..--1111i KING v. WILLIAM WILLIAMS.
This WAS au indictment brought against the de.
• fendaiat‘fOr sending a libellous letter to Mr. David
Bevan, to instigate and piovoke him to fight a duel.
Mr. ArToseczy GENERAL stated, that he would
not comment at any length on the offence the defen-
dant was accused with : the case was plain, and did
not require observations. •Thi defendant is a gen-
tleman, living jr: Maddox-street, Hanover-square ;
and the prosecutor, Mr. Bevan, a Partner in t most
respectable Bank in the City ; unfortunatelyfor his
client, he was appointed a Trustee under the will of
the defendant's father, and immediately aftet he had-
wound up the several particulars of his trust, he re-
ceived the following letter from the defendant

" TO MR. DAVID lIRVAN.
44 June 26, I M.—Maddox-street, Hanover-square.
" It was expected by the parties Mterestedthat you would have
been present yesterday: I wuppose'ynu are afraid to lace them :
your conduct has been as'" .nngesalemanly" as " unprecedented,"
and you have behaved like a " rcounarel."
(Signed by the defendant.) •
He (Mr. AT FORN EY •GEN ERA L ) would leave it .to
his Lotdship and the Jury to put that construction
on the letter it deserred. He could not avoid ob-
serving that,it was one of a most dangerous tenden-
cy, when the situation in life ofithe parties was con-i
sidered—with these observations he would call, his
witnesses.

Mr. Payne proved •that the letter was the hand-
writing of the defendant.
The letter was_ then read by the proper officer.
,Mr. David Bevan deposed, that he received the
letter from the defendant as it then stood, with the
Words " scoundrel," &c. scored under ; there had
been a meeting the day before hececeived it, to wind
tip the matters in trust ; he did not attend it. lie
had some unpleasant letters from the ladies, the sis-
ters of the defendant, before the meeting, but never
had a dispute with the defendant. He had left the:
perforniance of the trust to his Solicitor, Mr. Sey-
11-min• a in fact it was a preliminary that he should
have the conducting of it, before lie (the witness)
accepted of it.

On his cross-examination by Mr. MARRYATT, he
said he did not belong to the society called Quakers:
he received the letter in Loudon, and it was written
in' Middlesex.
Henry Rupert proved that the letter was put into
the two-penny post-office, Park street, Westminstak. •
This closed the case on the part of the prosecution.
Mr. Mannyarr—" There is much difference be-
tween a sealed letter being put into the post-office, and
a printed libel published to the world."
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—" The letter having been
proved to be put into the post-office is a sufficient
publication." , •
Mr. MARRYATT—" My client thought the prose-
cutor was one of those people called Quakers. He
certainly has told you in his evidence the contrary,
which, however, must shew that the defendant wrote
the letter under the idea that he *as one of that fra-
ternity, which provestlat he did not write it with an
idea of exciting him to fight a duel, as charged by
the indictment. There had been an application •to
the Court of King's Bench for a criminal informa-
tion, which they refused, which shewed they did
not consider the letter as a challenge; for they were
always careful to protect the person of the peaceable
subject."
Lord Ett.rNconouctr-,---" The Court of King's
Bench, for manifest reasons, might refuse a rule for
a criminal information ; but it does not follow that
they did not think it a challenge."
Mr. M A IMAM..." However the wordrin this let;'
itr might be most abusive, he would not contend they
were not libellous ; the word " scoundrel" was a
gross expression, but it was not made use of as re-
spected tile private or public character of the prose-
cutor, but as it tettated to a transaetios in which the
defendant had a Oat interest. 1-le would admit that'
the Jury would be.obliged to find I verdict for the in-
decorous expressions which were used in the letter ;
but he had every confidence that they would acquit
Lim of The intention to excitta duel."

---
. Lord ELLEVI3OnteGII."J4 Gentlemelf of the Jury;
the letter•tbat yon have read contains•words particu-
larly offensive, and that they might be more promi-
ttent, they are scored tinder.- The Learned Counsel
for the defendant does not deny but that the ekt)r6;
lions are libellous ;. but there are other counts in the
•indittment charging the defendant with the intention
to excite and provoke the prosecutor to fight.a duel.
It s for you to infer whether between persons, in the.
shanticia of the parties; such a. letter would be .the'
moans of a duel,,•or whether it was wrote 'with that
intention—if you think the words .are orilttalarani-
wing, you will find the defendant guilt; on-ete.count
charging him with a libel ; but if you think h&j'
guilty of the charges set forth in the other counts-you
will find him guilty of the whole." •
31,4 Jury, after a few minutes consideration, found
the defendant Guilty of the whole indictment.

RXRCUTORS OF JOHNSON V. TIERNEY, ESQ. 1
Mr. PARK stated, that this was an action brought
by the representatives of the late keeper of the Cir-
cus Coffee-house, for meat and drink furnished to the
order of the Right Honourable George Tierney.—
Mr. Tiet::ey was now a Member of Parliament, and
had once been Member for Southwark. He was,
bowever, Member no longer ; if he were, the Court
-would probably have heard nothing of bills of this
'degrading and disgraceful nature; it was probable
Mr. Tierney would-have paid his bills ; but his con-1
'section with Southwark wI.L. at. an end, he was no
longer Member ; and the representatives of a Cc flee=
house who had' supplied him at his oven distinct or-
der with meat and drink during his election, were actu-
tally obliged to bring this action for the amount of a.l
bill, the most moderate that perhaps had been char-
ged at an election within the knowledge of any man
conversant in those things. For the breakfasts, din-
lotrs, suppers, and occasional refreshment of 12 or 14
of Mr. Tierney's clerks, tornearly three weeks, the',
whole charge was. only £47 6s. (ad. The Jury
would be surprised to bear that this charge: included
-candles and stationery to the value of nearly 43, for
which money was given out of Johnstin's, the coffee
house-keeper's pocket. . It was really shameful that
such an action should be defended: •For pirltrt
sum, fAhly dire, due by his direct desire, and for his;
own immediate purposes, Mr. Tierney bare to be'
.