The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-11-15 00:00:00

11111110111M0
MIXT 0?

Fr_t

1'

~•

..,

l

'
• .4?•

i

,~

n''j
0.

11

I

1
1

,tart 3!!

~....

...9 TIM NINO V. WADDINGTON. . • '
. following is a more complete detail- of the pre-
sitta, of Which we yesterday gave. sketch.) •
' 13oxiction-GENERax moved the judgment of the
Pat' the defendant, cOnvicted of pablishinz a b
namely, Painter's Principles of Nature.tu.--
nt, on being called on, requested to be al-
101111111ffilffilmad s ellideslt.
' 1111111.11Amo Chiuter JUITICS Informed him Ito might road 1
011ieffillomotes of the trial had been read.
Iffilidlindllon was them satisfied.
Os $4,11;41p theo rend the indietimest and libellous
alsothe evidence on which the Jury found the
=tad guilty.
The defendant handed up Ida affidavit, which was read by
ffills Oilleer of the Court. He lint complained that he had
1.... t ilitiled by a Petit Jury, Instead of a Special Jury.
his belief that the Jury, Influenced by a ails-
iffilllll.o of the Lord Chief Justice, had given a verdict
essinrayie law. He alleged that his Lordship, towards
taw aid of Cite trial, made RR observation 10 aaawer to a
411•1104•11 from nee of the Jurors, which was contrary to
Isly and which induced the Jury to Ond the deponent guilty.
Goo of the Jurors having asked, whether a publication de-
1i Itai the t
iDcler
slot iitdy I g
was Jesus
a Christ
Lor
as
libel to woodeny athelit(7l:Astthinen refid-
. aotwithstandlnF an existing statute allowed the Uni-
t° impugn the Trinity. He also complained that
=
ffierwitnesses, R. Doke. had sworn at the trial that
BM deponent through the key-bole of a door OD the
slikeits.. He could prove it was impossible to see him as
Ilie mitosis had sworn..
The Loan Cane Justice—" I should have obrerved in
leadiag the report, that the defendant objected to beteg
Washy a Special Jury. He wished for a Petit Jury, as be
Plied it, and read a passage from Blackstone, the sense of
latilMt be did net appear to understand.
Woddittgton then addressed the Court for the pot,
pose of procuring a yew trial on the ground stated In
his afful.mit. He Itaci not ability, be said, to speak as
matters of law, which the Learned Gentlemen possessed
who sat in that Court, but he trusted the Judges would.
hearkins with patience. The defendant read from the
second volume of Mr. Justice Blackstone's Commenta-
ries; the passage which relates to esofficio informations
He phinted out the passagowbich states that the er-oll-
ciernformations must be tried by a petit jury of the
coanty, where the offence is committed.
' Mr:JOstite BAYLEY informed the defendant, that an
Act of Parliament bad pawed. which made it lawful to
try cases of misdemeanour coming before the Court upon
information by a Special jury. -
Waddington.—Then, my Lord, I will speak upon the
contradiction at the trial. .The witnesses were perjured.
1 haie heard Baron Wood e... -- Yr .. and when-
ever . completely
your
jury

Lord
represented
libel.

.a an-
pot be
-el bee
,abt
mezderer

. were
Act of

sll*
*ere radii,
fia ei sad
Tole.

deny the
the
Lord
Jesu
Vaita

that
of the
Paella-

4eoyleg the

sooty, to. - repeal
that Parliamentary provision, but they left the com-
mon law as it stood before. There is ne doubt the work
is a libel. It speaks of oar Saviour—not merely deny-
ing Lis God-bead, but be is described as a murderer and
imposter.
Waddington—l do not mean to defend the contents
of the hook. I did not sell it.
M r. JeeticeDasitro—That is another point.
Widdington—l mean now to contend that there was
no proof I sold the blok, and that it is a verdict against
evidence. Smith, the officer, wbo bought the work.
said, he neither paid me DO( saw me, when the book was
paid.
M. Justice BATLEY. Ifs person professes to be a
seller of books, be iaanswerabie for books he salters to
be sold in Lis hop.
Waddington -There vies another !hop in.the'Llitise
besides miter, and I have a eight. to say Mr. Poole, the
toisaeconist, was likely to,sell the book. lie was intri-
palm with police officega, and might have sold it as
well as other..
Judge BETLOY.—ltelote not appear to me there irany
foundation for a DOW trial.
Waddington interropted the Lturned Judge, and the
I.I)ItJVCIISE JUSTICE said, Have you done
Waddiugua.,—No, I have not.
effuse Joulca.—Then go on.
Waddington.-1 will prove by a plan of the staircase
that it was physically impossible a man could see ens
through the key hole of the door, as stated by use of
the witnesses.
Mr. Jesting henna-'li does not appear there is any
foundation for msew trial. One of the grounds is, that
the Defendant was not concerned in the publication ;
pow, it appears, on the evidence of Poole, that Wad-
dington succeeded a person nested Wright, is the pee-
session of the shop. Samuel Waddington wee over
the windowood it is perfectly clear that,.ll say person
consituts to thkaale of a pamphlet in his-shop, he as am
m stuble for the pamphlet sold. There was evidently a
contrivance tai keep out of sight the name of the thrum
who sold this pamphlet. The contrivance with a ringand
a bag mast have been known to the person keeping the
shop, who lent himself to the transaction, and therefore
be partook in the crime, and was answerable with the
hint: that ...old the book. Ido not consider it material
thm defendant was in the 'hop or not. If he
tnt hhnself to the transaction, he was
It was for the Jury to consider whether
it himself to the sale of such books as
Al the upper to the lower shop. The other
evidence of Doke, who said he saw the tie-
-h the key-hole. That is nut material.—
just to grog a new trial, because a tun
.cted in sonic past of his evideoce. I can
he defendant's affidavit alone, that the
.locebe, because the defendant would not
-- on any future trial ; but when
Smith, there is no doubt he
pureh 9to kook, sad that
;nee 'shop.'
reply.—(Alaufb.)
.k an not do that.

wuMil

......- .
1 1:,
Whether the defendant was in I
iwas absent and lent himself to
equntly guilty. It was for the
tboeindteifsenthdaenetyi4e
lentn se
.. were sent from the upper to eh
chei himself
kle,t:
r.
feodalt throu,:b the key-hole.
It would not be just to granj a
ray be co. :radicted in some p,
• stet take it on the defendant's
~.. '
contradiction did occur, becaut
be a comp tent wi.,:res on ant
•apretltothe...goaotutietu testimonyilo of Su
1:1
14 the bag to 'pt
It: boudbt it sa the defendant'',
'craddlagtoo-4 wish to raid
;
t Judge Sair-it;•441o; you ct
' 1 i
• •
' , ....... -,
1
t. . • ..
- 1:..t....._ •

1 bale beard Baron Wood try causes at York, aalnbi
ever b beard such contradictions he complet,
rloasited the proceedings.—(A laogh.)—Are y<
dihir of opinion that the observation to the jt
buidely the Lord Chief Jostles was legal?
Jll4/(13 ISAYLET.—Yes, I API of opinioo it was legal.
'Mt SOLICI4OII-01tNERAl. stated the question and 1
sweralludod to. One of the jury said before the vend
Was given-, I wish to ask your. Lordship a question of
matter of law. I wish to ask whether a book which
hies the divinity of our SAviour Is a libel? The Lt
Chief Justice answered that; kook which represen
oar Saviour as a murderer, mad so Impostor, was a lii
I'he Lotto Cuter Juarrca.-1 cautiously . gave an
Saver to the question, in thediape am; it might pot
misunderstood. The word, the ••,IB4lckor•lienersi 1
stated are sabstantiallymmesty. 1 ssW I bad no i'a
that a book which described our Saviour as a monde
end impostor was a libel.
Waddington then contended that the Unitarians w
allowed.% denya the divinity of Jesis Christ by Act
Farramtell; and upon that Act be writ. entitled to a
the opinion of the Lord Chief Jostles was illegal.
Ualtarlsti hoof; could tot be a tibpl.
Sidi* Watt:ay.—Before That Aottliemstere penal
go Irbil% pampas denylog the Trlaiff were liable a. I
Ohm peashiseitaly are repealed. .
Mi. Janda? Bette.—lt was an Act to eitobd the T
ration Act.
Waddington.—ln that Act It Is no cartes to deny
redhead; abd there is no doubt on lay mind, that
verdict woaid have been not /Oily, fa eam the L
Chief Justice had said the dental of the ifivisite ofgh
hrist wader the Act to extend toleration to the Un
riaos.was not unlawful.
Mr. Justice HATLET—What his Lordship said no
palm is perfectly legal. If it was the foondation of
verdict, the verdict ought to stand. The Act of Pat
it cot kiavisg imposed penalties on persons denying
Trinity, the Legislature, in 1819. thought fit to rej
• •