The Statesman.
London, England, 1824-01-26 00:00:00

. •
COURT OF S—
CHANCERY __. _ATUADAY, JAN. 24.
•
—"Ii"'"'"
coustAy O. 1101 Mit OW SOMUS sr.

Affidavits were offered by Mr. Googol, and the Duke's
solicitors, respecting the plane which bad been used on
the trials at law, sod which were now handed in for his
Lordship's use.
The Loeb CRANCKLLOR refused to receive the affidavits,
as the depoaests confessed that they had not been in Court
at the timed the trial, and were, therefore, not capable of
swearing any thing pusitively as to the proceedings. His
Lordship expressed great resentment on account of the
conduct of the Duke's agent, in having neglected to verify
the plans by the affidavits of persons who Woes in Court,
sod bad been called upon the trials. They (tad no right
to deal thus (with the Court, and he should let them knew
that it should not be done with impunity.
Mr. (burley asked if he might expect judgment to be
given on Monday ?
The LORD CHANCRLLOU said, that the condlet of the
other party, iu delaying to give him the information which
be had called for, bad made it difficult ; but to the best of
his ability he would certainly give judgment en Monday.

COURT OF KING'S BR NCH, WZSTMINSTU, JAN. 24,

THE RING V. PIELDIR.
This defendant appeared in Court pursuant to the direc
tion given in last term. that he should appear this day, to
which the consideration of his case was adjourned. He
stood convicted on two indictments for keeping a gaming-
house; one tried before Mr. Justice Bayley al years
ago, and in which no judginenf had ever been prayed; the
posteo having been subtracted from the Crowe-office; the
other on a more recent charge of the same kind, tried be-
fore the Lord Chief Justice. In the latter case, a motion
was made last term in arrest of judgment, on the ground
that the evidence failed to show that the house was situate
in the parish laid in the first count, and that the second
count, in which no parish was laid by way of local descrip-
tion, was insufficient in point of form.
The ATTORNEY-URNZRAL and Mr. LITTLEDALZ now
contended, that there was no occasion to set forth any pa-
rish. In civil actions, where the offence was not of a local
character, it was now unnecessary to mention a parish.
The same analogy extended to cruninal proceedings; and
even in indictments for murder, the parish was immaterial.
Mr. ADOLPHUS and Mr. Ciiirre argued, that an accu-
racy of local description was requisite in indictments for
offences of this nature, which were described as nuisances.
and therefore were essentially local.
The COURT took time to consider of the objection; and
in the mean time suggested to the Attorney-General that lie
might move for judgment in the other case, in which the
difficulty did not arise.
The ATTORNEY ORNERAL then moved for judgment in
the other case, which was tried in the year 1917.
Mr. Justice BATLEY read his report of the trial ; from
which it appeared that the house in question was No. 9,
Bennett-street, St. James's, and that it was the resort prin-
cipally of men of rank and fashion.
Mr. A marqis, for the defendant, requested time to meet
this case, which occurred at so distant a period.
The Coven. ordered the case to stand over till Thurs-
day, and, in the mean time, committed the defendant to the
King's Bench Prison.
THE KING V. 9OUTHGATZ AND ANOTHER.
Mr. SCARLITT moved 'for a rule to phew cause why a
criminal information should not be exhibited against two
persons named (we believe) Southgate an! Rich. They
bad been appointed deputies to Mr. Charles Vezey, sub:-
seneschal of the corporation of Gravesend ; but the
corporation had a right to insist that the du-
ties of the office should be performed in person.
When, therefore, the defendants presented them-
selves at the court, they were informed that they could not
be allowed to act, anti were directed to withdraw. They
insisted, however, on retnainiug, and successfully resisted
the attempt of the peace-efficere to expel them.
The COURT granted a rule to show cause.
CRIMINAL INFORMATION.
Mr. SCARLETT obtained a rale to show cause, wby a cri-
minal information should not issue against four persons,
Southgate, Rich, Trout, and Mills, for obstructing of the
Mayor's Court, in Gravesend.
THE RING V. EINNIITT AND OLDFIZI.D.
The defendants appeared to receive judgment on three
indictments, charging them jointly with keeping common
gaming-houses at No. 75. St. James's-street; No. 71, Pall
Mall ; and No. 6, Pall-mall ; and Oldtield was also called
on to receive judgment for keeping a gaining-house in
Bury-street, St. James's. It may be remembered that
judgment io two of these was moved for last term ; but the
cases were adjourned to give the defendants an opportuni-
ty of answering the affidavits t.ffered in aggravation of pun-
ishment. They are already suffering under the seutence
of the Court for a similar offence.
Affidavits by the defendants were now read, in which
they denied the charge made against them of keeping a
gaming-house in the King's Bench prison ; solemnly swere
that they had withdrawn from all concern in what they
termed " the play world ;" and stated that they were sub-
ject to disorders which would render protracted imprison-
ment dangerous to their lives. They imputed to their
prosecutors unworthy motives for the line of conduct they
bad taken, and in reference to one of them, Thomas Er-
skine Grant, expressed their belief that he was never in the
house to which he had spoken. Both of them bad large
families; and Oldfield produced the affidavits of a number
of wine-merchants, testifying that be had engaged in the
wine-trade, and conducted himself fairly in the way of his
business. On the part of the prosecutor Grant, an affidavit
was read, stating, that he had experienced great edifficulty
in bringing the defendants to justice ; that every possible
means was used to intimidate, harms, and oppress him ;
and that a quarrel having taken place between Mr. Oldfield
and his partner Mr. Carlos, the latter indicted him for per-
jury in the affidavit put in to mitigate his former sentence,
on the ground of poremy. but compronsised,as the deponent
believes for a large pecnoiacy recompense.
Mr. ADOLPHUS, in mitigation of punishment, expressed
his assurance that the Court, however they wieldy justly
reprehend the conduct of the defendants, would not think
that of the prosecutors entitled to favour. At the present
moment, he knew that a strong feeling existed in the pub-
lic mind against those who were guilty of the offence in
question; bat the Court were placed far above prejudice and
passion; they would do what was necessary for the public
weal, and they would do so more. These men were already
*offering for their fault; prosecution after prosecution bad
been heaped on them by those who had no moral
claim to attack them, and for the basest purposes; they
bad already pima up the practice for .w.hktb they were in-
dicted; and therefore enough bad perhaps been done for
justice and for preveeltiee. They were broken men;
broken in health aed to fortune; and it could not be ne-
cessary, for say purpose, that tbeyshould be utterly crushed
into the earth, and deprived of providing for their families
by honourable industry:
ATTOII/41IYAIMERAI. liddllNled the Courtin the
case prosecuted by Nipoad, and la which the Reales had
been subtracted front the Crewa-elfide. The circumstance
of his appearing to move for Inatome proved the truth of
ass obeerntiou Mr. Adellpsiii-rilts prowcutors of
cases like these were efsa She bowl minim ,
He hat himself to ma plate .imeaspa
_km was only
sallow for thefiseadppiesahmt el Neat MuteiM vice; and
sbouldsigliads vrith Would be at-
tended With this result.. ^
.
Mr.ijoarrair. adthelsod gs4soriiipicti •Wictwen.
te•tse vld
prosecuted by Mr. W.Sesdt.Tki difeltdas
aeoplaimed %as day wore impoverished; but what had
they whisk they did ant obtela by the rain of Inheres?