The Statesman.
London, England, 1820-11-28 00:00:00

SPORTING INTRI.LIGENCE.
SEWING AT TA'M'KRRALL's, soy. N.

naawr.—l4 to I apt Gastaaao—lS to I apt Rrother w
Partiaan—l7 to f apt e. oat of Mosel-1; to I apt c. otlt
Charm.
Ooas.-9 to 2 apt MI Liao.
Doricarraa 2T, I.ves2,-10 to 1 apt Jack Spigot.
- • - -
LA IP' LvrELLIGEscs.

1111 alma 0. eta raalselfl mixt :TT.
In this iw; orlant case, of which %r yesterday exalt•
sively gave a ski tell of the opinions of the Judges, tlr o
the time our paper went to press, the reasons assibited
by the majority of the Court fur refusing the new trial
were in every respect concurrent ant .inolar.
There were four leading objet lions to the verdict Is
recorded. First—That there was uo evidence that the
alleged libel was published in Leictstersi ire. Second—
That the publication having taken plate in Middlesex,
where the crime of libel was completes', the venue ought
ti be laid there, for in misdemeanours the indictment can
only be tried where the offence is complete, and not t...bere
it has CW11111..0001. Third—That evidence was impro-
I petty rejected, which would have gone to prove the truth
of the facts, upon which the libel. which was a mere com•
mentsry upon those facts, was founded : and fourth—
That the charge to the Jury, on the part of the Learned
Judge, was partial and unjust. As to the quest on, whe-
ther the mere writing of a libe', without publication, v ea
an offence, the Court declined to give any opiniuti, toe
question not Was necessar ly r.teed Ibis case, for
there was here, in fact, a publication. The Learned
Judges uho were of opinion that no new trial o ight
be granted, a 'dressed thtmeelves entirely la. the four
points above tneut:oned, and ma.nt fined that the defend-
ant was clearly not entitled to a verdict.
Mr. Justice Winer concurred in general with the
rest of the Court in what had been said, as to admissibi-
lity of the evidence rejected, sod as to the charge of
the Learned J edge to the Jury upon II:Slaw am I a
facts of the case. The difficulty he felt, sod whie.st,
from first to last, he had not been able to overcome, was,
as to the direction of the Leatoed Judge respecting the
publication of th.! I.b •I in the county of Leicester. 'I We
was a technical objection beyond all doubt. not at ad
int •rfcrine with the met is of the t as. ; bi t w tether a
technics o'jecti in or nit, it wi.s such an eke: on, as
upon the etosi careful consideration, he was able to
get over. He should be falling from that whir'. washis
duty as a Judge, if be did not avow that opit h 0 t, and
give the def, n lent the full benefit of it w 'stem- it
Wight he. It appeared to him that there was no pir a
facie case smile out, from which the presumption could
Le drawn ti a. the libel had been published in any
rational sense, iu the county of Leicester. he
fully admitted the right to presume guilt from Wla
once establi, he 1 ; but here there were no facts p.•.(el
which could justify such a presumption. It was
the duty of the brusetutors to have goose much farther;
they. should have called Mr. Ilickersteth to supply tLe
deficient link in the chain of evidence, in order to show
under what circumstances the libel was delivered to
hien by the defendant. Without, therefore, considering
the question whether the fact of putting away a sealed
le:ter, was in law a publication, be was of opinion that
the defendant was entitled to have had the circumstances
left to the Court by the Learned Judge, put into the
shape of a suecial verdict, in order that he might have
the benefit of a writ of error. This be was deprived of,
and on this ground he thought the case ought to go
before another Jury. lint lie was not at present rill-
, pared to say, that the mere fact of patting a sealed
letter into the Post Office was a publication. This was
at least a doubtfal point, and the cases upon which the
'posit on was toimued were Nisi Pries decisions, and
had net .r undergone a solemn review. His objection
tto tbe v otliet, however, did not stop here. It appeared
to h!tn that publisiting **l weltAngt. WI( one ratite
offeoce, and consetinently that proof of writing eery efl
t 1 eices•ershire, would not be sufficient to give a Jury of
that county cognisance of the offence. This was his
opiniun, atter the best consideration. He could see av
distinction between misdemeanours and feloni s is the
application of this principle; and after his Lordship had
gone through au elaborate examination of the cases
upon thi4 subject, he expressed himself clearly of opinion
that the defendant was entitled to a new trial.
The majorityof the Court being therefore against the
application, the rule for a new trial was discharged.
The SOLICITON-OKNIKA I then rose and said, that the
Counsel fur the Crown having dispensed with th.•
attendance of the defendant during the discussion of
the motion for a new trial, it probable would not be ex-
pected that he should be called up .fur judgment this
Term, not having had any notice upon the subject.
The Cutler 3VIFITICR-111 was so understood, and there-
fore he cannot be called upon this Term.
THE DAKIAG KKSCUB GANG.