Star.
London, England, 1827-07-16 00:00:00

authority fre..o* VC, .Rlebardsos kad-fletw a 4rSt_,ol
years ago, but ho lid not implOyed
Hallett, upteithrt:oestaides. sty Het et** is Ordplieita fhf•
being wholly 104‘441111!0 him before &aerial..
:William Menzies, a tailor; living in Chartire.streetiAdary.la-
bonne,presented a bill for ypaybaent at one home of Hallett; it wall
for lOW. and drawn by zambedab Thompson, upon thirfirm of
I Hallett and Henderson, and accepted by Hallett. in the name of
the firm. He received this bill front Oliver, la tie street where
Hagen lived; and gor-frotwOliver at the same time, such a melte
as is usual to leave/Settee blUi-are not paid. That mocks he ieQ
at Hallett's house, when he was denied to him. Oliver was I. have
called upon him the next morning, to get back the bill, but sa he
did not corns before nine o'clock the witness Went to the house of
Hallett, in Northumberland...acct. He found there Hallett,
Thonspiren, and Oliver, is the kitchen; whew be recognised him,
be said to him. " Young man, you did Dot call upon in. as you
promised, to get back the ;" and he replied, "No. we Mee al-
tered our plans." This witness was present at the attempt to
prove the C.ommissies, and bore testimony to the fact of all the
patties being present.
Os his crospexaminatlon he admitted having been in custody
for debt a great many times, but never confined within the walls
of a prison.
. Henry Berridge was a clerk in the employment of Hallett and
Henderson. He swore to the fact of Hallett having asked him to
I swear to the denial of" Heittlerson, for the purpose of supporting
the Comadmies against the partners, and that he refused to do so.
He was afterwards Asked to swear to the denial of Hallett.
which he did.
Mr. Bailey Fez, a grocer, proved a debt under the Commit ion
hoed against the 'separate estate of Hallett. Haiku was very angry
with hint for offering that proof. He asked Hallett however. weep
they were in the Cbmrn4.iuoers Court. in Basinehall-wreet, who.
tber he would say that be really owed one hundred pounds to any
of the people about him (mousing Thaalpaoo, Oliver, and the
others), and he replied, that be did not owe twenty pounds in the
world, except what was due to witness, if a •balance was wreck
between hint and the partnership. Witness. however, tho* be
was in their debt.

__—
A Partner, and a Clerk of the house of Ransom and Co. where
Hallett and Henderson kept cob, were then called to prove that
the 1001. bill drawn by Thompson was taken away, and the wean
paid upon it before it wm due.
Richardson was then called, for the purpose of beating testimony
to the connivance ot all the defendants in the attempt to procure
the Conmiission of Bankruptcy against the firm. He recollected
1 the drawing ot the bill, dated the with of October, and he was coo. I
orient that it was written on tie ,th of December; because, when
it was brought to him, in order that he might write the notice of
leaving it at the house, the ink was not quite dry. The body of the
bill was in the handwriting or Hallett. lice signature et the eta-
dorsement was in the handwriting ot Thompson. This witness
clearly proved that Oliver and Thompson were promo in the at-
tempt to procure the Consanalon„ and that ditty mini the
whole of the transaction. He also proved that Halloos declared be
ow little or nothing, except a auk or two to his tailor.
The CoMmon Selina* ti: then addressed the Jury for
the defendants, and admtred that be could not stand
up to excuse the act of which Hallett bad been guilty.
He thoughtohowever, that there was much in the case
sib ch might be urged in palliation of his conduct, and
particularly dwelt upon the fact, that there was no in-
tention to defraud a single creditor of his just demand.
The whole might be ascribed to the :violation of the
pledge which the elder Henderson bad given, not to
demand his money until Vcbruary. It was not at all
wonderful, therefore, that the defendint, smarting
under the. effect of the execution, and foreseeing the
consequent:lain of his business, if that execution was'
carried into effect,. should adopt means, which he did
not pretend to justify,io palliate its effects. The refusal
'to consent to Henderson's conditions for the dissolution
of the partnership, was perTectly defensible—Henderson
had done nothing tosiarchtthe erection of the very profit.
able business in which they were engaged. He had been
absent or sick, Mr. Hallettwas ueite right in refusing
to consent to any thing but the repayment of what be
had put into the concern. The Learned Gentleman then
again adverted upon the impropriety of bringing the
case into that Court, when there was a proceeding be•
fore the Lord Chancellor to try the validity of the com-
mission ; and contended, that the question as to the
fraudulent nature of the transaction, could be only tried
there. He Concluded by some observations upon the
nature of the evidence as applying to Thompson and
Oliver, and expressed 'an opinion that the participation
was not, at &events, tirade out sufficiently clear against
Thompson.
Lord TauTeanspf soothed up at tome length, and
reminded the Jury, in answer to the objection of the
Learned Comtdon Sergeant, that although that Court
could nut' determine the validity of the Commission, it
was its peculiar -province' to punish the Commission of
crime. His Lerriship, after going over the evidence,
left it to the Javy-to say whether a guilty connivance
was not proved against all the defendants?
The Jury immediately pronounced all the defendants
Guilty.
When they were brought into Court by the Officer,
Mr. Cnrery intimated a disposition to .give .bail for
their appearance when 'called upon, but Lord
pall declared his deteimination to commit them imme-'
diately, and they were committed accordingly.—The
, sittings of the Court at Westminster were then adjourned
till the 29th of October. •

His LORDSHIP bears causes at Guildhall on Monday
;this day), and the following days of the present sittings.
COURT OP COMMON PLEAS, JCaT 14.
ralCa O. THWAITZII.

This was an action for a libel on the plaintiff, con.
tamped in the publication of a brief report in the Morn-
ing Hera d, of a case in the Exchequer, in which the
Plaintiff had brought an action against the Swaday
Times, for the manner in which his name had been in-
troduced., in a police report. charging him with drun-
kenness and disorderly conduct in the streets. To the
present action it was set up as a justification, that the
report of what-passed in the Exchequer was perfectly.
Correct. •
Mr. Sergeant WILDE, for the plaintiff, stated, that
this was an action brought by Mr. Price, a Gentleman
at the Bar, against the defendant, the Proprietor and
Editor of the Morning Herald newspaper, for a libel
in that paper calculated so do very serious injury. to the
plaintiff. This was not the first action brought on ac-
count of the same libel. An action on the same ground
bad been brought by the same plaintiff against the
same defendant, and in that action the plaintiff had re-
covered One Hundred Pounds damages. Mr. Thwaites
had been ready enough to make the charge against the
tefendant, for which that action was brought ; but he
did not think it necessary to publish this vindication of
bis own character by the plaintiff. and he accordingly
suppressed the report of that action. Other tlewspapers,
following the example of the Morning Hers taken
notice of the same charge against the plaintiff, but not
in quite the same manner, making it rather a matter of.
ridicule than any thing else, and Mr. Price brought an
action against the Sunday Times. That action was
defended by Mr. Brougham, who, as they all traew,l
was particularly well qualified to throw ridieele ern
any transaction which was susceptible cf ft. if be
thought it for the benefit of his client that be should do
so. In that case there was a justification, but the Jury
found for the plaintiff, thereby negativing theeliarges;
but, as the libel was somewhat differently cast from
that in the Morning Herald, they only gave one Arbil-
ling*damages. Mr. Tbwaites, who had_aoppressed the
verdict for 1001. against himielf, Newel; to tile some

sq vela. on oecealenittftivii *Ming damages. and
4ffer preteniiisf a repoff elf the`trial of that epee
in.the Exchequer. puhlidstd hie libel for which the
present action was brought; so that the .Jury would
observe the spirit and systeni of these libel*, and be
trusted they would give. heavy damages, to deter the
4foraing Herald from patikeviring in this course. The
circumstances of the case were tbeve r Mr. Price hap-
pellet to be inur•iing home late at night, and having oc-
casion to relieve himself from a person.] incoanniecee,
he turned tp a wall foe that parpose,when he was as
be. . a watchman, who said that he had no business
so to do at that place. Mr. Price thinking this swim-
proper interference, desired the watchman to go about
his bushess. They then, however, went to the watch-
house, and the watchman gave in a charge, bet ink that
which had been stated by the Marring Herald, which
stated that Mr. Price had exposed his person indsce.itty
to two females. It was a great misfortune, even to an
innocent man, to have such charges brought against
him; and Mr. Price, feeling greatly distressed, brought
his action, as b:forementioned, and recovered 100 k
damages. One would have thought, that if Mr.Thwaites
had been inadvertently led into error. he would have
been glad to mike rep irainn by publishing the acquit-
tal of Mr. Price. But no such thin,.. Cars was taken
bat the readers of that Paper should not know bow
unfounded the charge was. The present libel was con-
tained in an' account of the trial in the Exciseman, and
it began in this manner—" An action was brought by
man of t e name of Price."-.This was net the usual
respectful style adopted when speaking of Gentlemen
of the learned profession. The libel then went on to
repeat the charges of being dt unken and disorderly ni-
che streets, and exhibiting his person indecently to two
lemalei. He was instructed to say, that this latter part
was entirely groundless and erroneous, as no.charge
had bren made against Mr. Price for exposing himself
indecently to females. They said that their report was
fair; but he denied that it was fair, and he denied his
Learned Friend A prove it.
The Mirefeas iferebt of the sad and ride Fabreary, were thee
esate.ssit hamiLmapp ease the arid revert et the Encheieer rem
whisk inn plea libel le geeeden.
r Mr. Sergeant %Los remarked, that there vas there
a refeleace to the Vagrant Act, and to the insulting two
females; Qantas, in point of fact, tie watchman was
asked whether Mr. Price intended to insult females? and
the answer was, that he did not think he did.
Mr. Sergeant T.IIDoI (with whom was Mr. Sergeant
&maxis) for the defendant--his. Learned Friend had
Wily stated, that the plaintiff. Mr. Price, was a banister.
esid be could net help wishing that all bat risters, who
gave good counsel to others, should be as able to do so
be themselves. it had been said that—
Gi wise rites e'er freemen, shoeld Wand be free."
Bat Doctor Johnson had objected to this, and observed
that it might at well be said, thet—
a' Who drives fat earn;stralsid Isitarelf be fat."
His Learned Friend bad dwelt as the gist of the charge,
upon the allegation that the plaintiff indecently exposed
his person to females. That was not the charge, but that
two females were standing at the time at the neigh.
bouring door. Mr. Price, however, thinking it a point
of law thit he should be at liberty to relieve himself
where he pleased, had betaken himself to a door or an
area, and when challenged by the watchman, had agreed
to go to the watchhouse, probably in order to have the
Magistrate's decision upon the point. If these was no.
thing about females in the watchhouse books, there was
at least, that Thomas Robinson, the watchman, charged
John Thomas (which was the name Mr. Price gave
in), with being drank and disorderly in the streets,
and indecently exposing his person. Perhaps the
plaintiff belonged to a country where the people
were said to be choleric and fond of cheese, end
he that was wilful and angry would be pugnacious;
and he that ate cheese and drank cyder would be pressed
in a certain way. The plaintiff brought his action
against the Morning Herald for the police report of this
transaction, and recovered, as they had been already
informed, 1004 damages. He afterwards brought an
action against the Sanday lister, and reentered one shil-
ling. This proceeding against the Sunday Tines was
noticed in the Morning Herald; and the only question
was, whether the account there given of it was substan-
tially correct? The present prticeeding was a kind of
new nisi, in order to ascertain whether the 1001. da-
mages or the shilling damages was the most propel?
His Learned -Friend bad remarked on the-expression,
" a man of the name of Price,7 and appeared to think
it was an imputation on the defendant. t .at he had not
described him as " George -Price, Bsq. Barrister at
Law." • That was done in mercy to Mr. Price; for if
'a
MO of lit r.nk conducted himself in this manner,
the less be was srsken cf 'as a Barrios, the better.
The account published in the Morning Herald was
perfectly fair, except that it was mentioned that there
were two females present, which was not charged ac
the watchhouse. But then that circumstance was
alluded to at the Bow-street Office, if not entered in
the book there. The paper did not affect to say that
be exposed his person for the purpose of insulting the
females. It would beim the Jury to say, whether the
Morning Herald had lowered the plaintiff in the eses
of his friends or the public, and whether it could lower
hies more than be had lowered himself. The Alarming
Herald had done him no injury...he had only perse-
vered in injuring himself by bringing the present actkin.
If a person did commit himself in this menace, he
must take the consequences. He remembered to
have heard that a certain person took it into. bk.
to go to a masquerade in the character OP
a mile-stone, and a Gentleman thought proper to
perform against him the same operation as thE plain.
tiff had done against the, door, or in the area—(A
laugh.) For this the mile-stone brought an action,
and the Gentleman justified—maintaining, that as the
plaintiff there had made himself a mile-stone, be-waa
entitled to use him as such: Some people certainly
were more fastidious than others about these matters;
and they might recollect, that by the account of n eels-
heated Book of Travels, a certain Lady was not very
teal pleased at an exhibition of this kind. The book
,be alluded to was the Travels of Captain Lemuel Gul-
liver, which he considered as a most veracious and real
book of travels. The palace of Lilliput bad caught
Rtes an.l was in danger of being burnt to the grossed
before the engines could be procured, when Captain
teel bethought himself of a speedy method of rano-
ies:fling the times, which he did by means of the
operation of which they had that day heard so mush.
'IU Queen was very angry - coon
induce her ever to enter -'

React Sipaszta--Ig wag ,
His Learned Friend said ►
treason; bat however that
notmaio eater that palace.
of Ulyput bad to build
want Mr. Pt ice's aid/tans*

% •

111

I 1
;NI 1
.1.1 1
t
• , .1,
'll .
.1.•
, 1
.i,
ll ,
1 ,
, 1

IVY at this, and nethiag coold
that palaceessain.—[Mt. 3a-
considered as alh'treasesta—
that it was gotisidered as 44
at sliest be, bet Majesty wield
es, and the Hostas of Coloasaca
Id her sooditt. Tboy did sot
Lg. 414111 *Not, for sal stash
JL
•