Star.
London, England, 1828-11-28 00:00:00

JOHN KNIGHT.

Mr. BROWNIAN( moved fbr si rule to show cause *hy
a criminal information should not be sled against the
Ulf. John Knight, cies k, a Magistrate for the county
of Oxford, for alleged and corrupt conduct in his office.
The application *as founded on the affidavits of a pub-
lican ofCharton, Oiton, Ann, his wife, the ionstab:e
of the vial, and other pers-ns, which set nut that
about eight o'cl,-ck on the evening of the Sd of July the
.Rev. Mr. Knight came to the house of Mr. Higgs and
said, "I insist on your turning out those drunken fel-
lows," alluding to Higgs's son, a respectable bullet, the
pule!) constable, and a respectable farmer, who were
not drunk, and who had only drank three pints of beer
among them. Mrs. Higgs urged that there wag
no drunkenness or disorder; ors which Mr. Knight
became enraged, and went out for two labrurers of bill
own, and commanded them' to turn the people out; but
they laughed, and refused to interfere, as they saw std
ditirder. Mr. Knight then went and fetched arrorhef
labourer, and said he would Make them spetird conger:
*les, and therefore called upon them for their atisistaitted
but they still refused. Mr. Knight then retired, asM
Mrs. Higgs pot the chairl across the door; but he re 4.
turned, made a violent knocking at the door, and tired
' burst it open, used most abusive lane:age t 6 Mrs.
Higgs, and struck her two violent blows. A stogie
ensued between Mr. Knight and the son, and it the
nest Oxford Assizes cross-indictients were preferred a tuf

found by the Grand Jury. After this, ho-werer, at the
neat licensing day, when Higgs applied for hislicente
(Mr. Knight being present), he tendered a certificate ci
the respectability of his house, signed by one ch'Orch-
warden, two overseers', and I great number of respecta-
ble parishioners. Mr. Knight, hiraever,thiewthe paper
back, saying that they were all raff', and told them to
retire, that the Magistrates might consider. On beng
ladled in again, the licente was refused.
Lora Tairraapart—Tate a role t 6 those cause. •
TUI *IWO V.
r • Nit. Cianoistv *Mil foe and obtained a rift, to

how cue why a criminal it formAtioi should not
be filed statist th'e propiietors of a Both journal, for a
hhel imputing to the Mayor of Welk, 'that he was a
tippler, and continually vetting din k (hi:Ovine, On
Vie Sabbath dining D rice Service.
RU Ir. THWAITES .

The S:,LICITnit gt 4 1111- A ro 1 tie his c-4rvVtfcine
in support r f the iu:e which lie had nbtained,
on the defend int to show cense why a trimintl infor-
mation should not be filed against him for i Idle on
Rocafuerte; the Mexican Minister to this triunity. The
libel t misted in charging Rocattiette with the Otiblica-
tit% of falsehoods relative to the Mesicao S cut hies, with
A view to his obVil individual advalage. Tnis was dis-
tinctly denied in the itifidavitnt Itocafiserte, who swore
diet he had published nothing tin the subject with a
vit w to his own individual advantage.
Mr. Parrison f Rowed on the same side, and ot.
served that it was sufficient that the affi.tavit denied the
fact imputed tobim, without wing into further detail.
Lord TENTERDeII—It was the opinion of the Court
that the rule in this case ought to be discharged. Bit
although the Court did not think this a Case for the
exerciie of its extraordinary jurisdiction, it leis pet fectly
open to Rocafuerte to proceed by indictment. The
gronni laid in the affidavit in suppiot rt his rule was
by fir too narrow. He bad denied that he published
the.e advertisements with a view to his own petional
advantage. But he ought either to have denied his
having any thing to do is ith these publications fur the
advantage of his friends, or for any other purpose, or
he ought to have distinctly stated that he hid received
instructions of the nature mentioned in the adversise-
ments, and that he fully believed the statement to be
true. It was Well known that agents in that situation
fen received one letter for their own Ovate
instruct-
ti• n, and another to be shown to the public. The affi-
davit was defective, and the tole must be discharge J—
. discharged.
Till KING V. TOUNCI.

Mr. Bnouon AM •lio.i.ed cause against a nee obtained
by the Attoinii-General, calling on the editor of the
Sun Evening Paper to show cause why a criminal in-
fog mii ion should not be filed against him fora libel on
Lord Strangford. The application was made on the
affidavit if that noble Lord, complaining of an article
pitblished in the Sun of the 7th of August. Mr.
Brougham admitted that the article was intended to
impt.te to Lord S rangfird a want of veracity. The
Noble Lord had denied the charge, as being tot.tly
false and groundless. He never had been the tesiler
of Mr. Canning, and.,nothing in his private or public
conduct could warrant the charge made by the wrier
of the alleged libel. The Couit would see, not sith-
standing that denial, that the Noble Lord had not made
an affi -avit which came a ithin the t ule by which they
granted criminal itforntationi. Tne alleged libel re-
ferred to a statement horn the Time: inserted in another
part of the defendant's paper, and not one of the mat;
tern in that statement had the Noble Lord denied.
Lr rd Strangford confined h mse:f to the deoial of the
charge in the San respecting his veracity, but these was
no denial of the facts on which the charge was founded.
Those facts were of the most specific character.
Mr. Justice PARKE—Are they in the 'lures ?
Mr. BROWN/tit—They are, and copied into the San.
The article in the Times commenced with sajing,.. We
had thought his Lordship was too well known t r his
patrons to be entrusted again with another neg ciation.
The tneve than diplomatic hitedoinwhich Vie NobleLerd
tor.k with matters of fact renders him unfit for diplo-
macy." No answer was given on ifiai subject. lie was
di• posed to pass over the N .ble Lord's oration on Mr.
Caoning, to whom he owed his appointment, Int with
respect to his late mission to the Brazils, Lord Strang-
ford had given statements which he might by posi-
bility explain, but certain it was that he had not ei-
plained them to the Coml. By that omission he had
excluded himself from the remedy so .ght in that Conk.
It will he remeintered that the late King if Portugal
was induced, on the approach if the French armies, to
einbaik for Rio Janeiro. Lord itrangtoid was
the British Ambassador at Lisbon, aid after the King
of Pus tugal had been expelled wir. his family, it
appeared by the dispatches of the Noble Lord that
he had been the means of forting hiM to take that
'step. It words could &le a plain meaning, no
!other meaning was conveyed than this. The kesalt
if Lord Strangford's interview with the nine.
Regent was, that he induced him to embark foe,
'the Brazils. The article in the limes wept on to for
y,
that thedispatch (-tom his Lordship, p_drporting to be
dated lions the Tagus, on board the Htb Unto, on tbe
27th of November, 1807, *as %Witten in 17-'cimbers in
Bruton-street, London. The Ntrili Lod, in his pads-
phlet in answer to Colonel Napier, had contissed haviiig
written it in London. It was written, xecroding to the
Noble Lord's :fitment, by order tit Mr. Caniii-g. The
notable dispatch was commented on by Me. 8: cieoiadu
It said the Prince Regent applied all his appielien,iiin
to the French armies, and all his hot e to the British
fleet. Whoever read this dispatch *bold suppose Lord
'Strangford saw the Prince Regent, and advised him to
,embark for the Brazils. He stated that the Prince Re-
gent of Portugal had adop•ed the wise prec.uticiii of
leaving Portugal, and the Noble Lord included in his
dispatch the ship of war which left Lisbon on the morn-
ing the dispatch appeared to bear date. He thought it
expedient to common cate to his Maje.t)'s Government
this important dispatch, and he had to apologize for the
hasty and imperfect manner in which it was written.
His Lordship was no doubt in great haste at the em-
barkation. It *as written in lit uton-street, cum month
after it purported to bear date. There was some ground
to suppose his Lordship might he able to account for
this apparent want of veracity, but certainly he had
not done so. The public service Might have been pro-
moted by that dispatch, but why not inform the Court
that Mr. Canning desired him to go and write chi. dis-
p itch ? He (Mr. Broughanb) would suppose that the
dispatch was written in the' Tagus, and that all was true,
but then it rested on the averments in his Lordship's
pamphlet. He shJuld have given affidavi:s confirming
the statements in the pamphlet. Toe Nuti:e Lord only
said he never did any thing in which he toutd bi
charged with perjury. This Mr. Brougliatis agein sib-
witted was not enough to induce the Court to grant a
criminal information.
Mr. ALKIANDER on the s ime side said, when it was
!known that the charge, of inc. nsistency applied to Lord
Strangford could be explained, the Sun. on the 19. h of
August, printed the whole of the Noble Lord's aiologe-
'lical pamphlet. The Learned Counsel submitted that
ihe sue misfit be discharged.
The Ayr:fabler GINKRAL said he should contend,
upon all the iniiliples which protect the character of a
public Minister, that the role Ought to be made Jibs( -
lute, otherwise the Editor of one Journal Might 1 uhlish
a statement, and the Editor of :moiler r..pei make
libellous comments on it with impunity. There bad
appeared an article in the' Times, which applied to
Lord Strangford in Ms diplomatic character. Tire Vittr
of the Thies did not say Lord Strangford was no to I a
believed on hii oath, but the Edit& of the Sun Aid, and
thereby &ale a g?ovs personal attack. It the auk wis