The Statesman.
London, England, 1821-11-13 00:00:00

THE.._WrAi

LAW INTELLIOILATCIL

COURT OF CHANCERY, Now. HI.

CONTEMPT OF COURT.
ICALRB V. BARLOW.
The LORD CHANCELLOR—" 1 have read the affidavits
in this ease, Mr. Ching, and as it respects Joseph Bar- •
lowe, the person not committed, I do not see that yogi
have given me jurisdiction ; as you have not named hie
in the Petition, he was not enjoined by the order of the
Master of the Rolls from conversing with the infant, trd
his having dens so cannot be considered a contempt Of
Court. You must present another Petition, naming the
actual contempt committed by him. When I am Aired
to send a man to gaol the actual offence must be ex-
pressly stated on the face of the Petition, to give the
party accused an opportunity of answering it.
Mr. Caput said, he would follow the course pointed
out by the Court.
The LORD CHANCELLOR rose at one o'clock.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Nov. 12.

THE KING V. DAVID RIDGEWAY.
Mr. BROUGHAM moved for a DOW trial in this cases Ilk
stated that it was an indictment ler • libel, tried it Vie'
last Assizes for the county of Lancaster, before Ur. Jea.
tice Holroyd, when a verdict was found for the Crown.
The prosecution was instituted by a Society knorjelly
the nameof the '• Bridge-street Association," for pre-
tended seditious libel. The evidence, and the onlY evi-
_

deuce for the prosecution was that of • boy, or young
man, aged IS, of the name of Evan Millar, who was
clerk to an attorney named Nadin, one of the attorneys

of Manchester—a well-known name to some persons.
This was Nadia the younger ; for old Nadin, the 'lief
taker, had retired to live in the country as a private gen-
tleman ; the attorney Nadin was his son. The Witness
deposed .that he had called at the house of David Ridge-
way, who is a fustian-cutter by trade, in the town of
Mancheiter, carrying on his business in the upper part
of the house, whilst his wife sold various :Micky such
as sand, potatoes, checks, children.' books, one or two
of which had been specified as "Jack the Giant Killer,"
and " Mother Shipton's Tales," and various trifling ar-
ticles of that sort, in a small room in the lower part of
the house. It was material to observe, that in this
case the witness did not pretend to have bad any pre-
vious acquaintance with or knowledge of the defend-
ant. The defendant was not produced in Court, or
pointed out so that be might be identified. This was
not the case of a common informer witness, for, in fact,
he might wort properly be called an accomplice in the
alleged libel. As the defendant was not produced, it
became necessary, upon the subject of identity, that
the witness, in order to give credit to his testimony,
should mention such facts and circumstances as should
leave no doubt that the shop at which he bought the
pamphlet was the shop of the defendant, and that Da-
vid Ridgeway was the identical individual of whom
the pamphlet bad been purchased. The wititiat aided
that be went to the shop of the Aefendant (sad it
ipsold appear presestly bow heCedeavisuretrysjbew
that it was the defendant's shops; whetrim
window, pasted upon one of the pannels, this advertise-
ment in writing:—" An Address to the Rilformers of
Great Britain." That he then went in, anll asked the
man whom he saw there, to sell him "The New
Year's Address to the Reformers of Great Britain;
that the man told him he bad sot got it.
Mr. Justice Houtovn—He said be saw the defend-
ant himself.
Mr.-Bsoconam—Certainly he said the but the
reason be gave for identifying the shop is, witat I am
upon at present.
The CHIEF .lu:ince—Was the defendant ih Court ?
Mr. BROIMIAK—He was in Lancaster, bit I do not
know whether he was in Court. He the. said,
that the defendant told him that he bad it met, but he
was writing to town, and should send. for it, and
that lie should have it at the end of that week ; the
witness then said he should call again at the time speci-
fied; that on Saturday be called a second timeoend asked
for it, when the defendant told him be bad sot got it;
that he called once or twice more, add, in short. called
four times. That on the Tuesday following he did get
it. He also swore, that on one of these occasions the
defendant had said, that be bad sold some copies of
that pamphlet before, " The New Year's Address."
lire. He further deposed, that be also bought of the
defendant one of those Addresses which bad been ad-
vertised in the window. Under these circumstances
the Learned Counsel bad submitted, that there being
no other proof of the defendant's knowledge of the
nature of what he was selling, thei4i wee nothing
to ground a verdict of guilty, more especially as
the only pamphlet indicted had been purchased by
the defendant, at the witeess's own special request and
procuration ; for as to the other pamphlet, there was
no pretence for saying it was libellous, or,. no doubt,
it would have been inflicted. But that *which he
chiefly wished to call the attention of -the Court
was the statement which this young outs, had mode
at as induremeat on the part of the Atsp. to be-
lieve him, when be stated, that he bombs the al-
leged libel of the defendant. In the coarse of,
of his examination, he said ,0 This was pa ;be 27th
of March, and it may be proper to observe, that
there was a sign over the defeodat's door. ' David
Ridgeway, dealer in tea, coffee, tobaccoisugar,"
Now, this was the part of the ease with respect to
which he addressed his motion for a new tr:al, be-
cause it tended to allow that this young man was
wholly unworthy of credit, as he bad motitended at
the trial. He was provided with the affidavits of
the defendant himself, of Mr. John Daniel, sad Maria
his willikof Mr. James Murdock and asother respect-
able pecans, all of whom deposed meet solemnly that
the sign alluded to had been taken down in the regi-
ons month of October, and had serve beam put up
again from that time to this. So that. this Bean
Millar, the *ldr-witness for the prosectules, was
expressly cootredieted by the defendant and fear
disinterested persons, in the most. wiamOd plat of
his evidence, which west to imps& 401 whole ere-
dil ref his story. The reason Irby she.. persona
Were set called at the trial were Nest obviate.—
This falsehood of Millar came wpm 'be dsfeerdases
Counsel by surprise, and they bid so mesas ekes we
contradicting him. Is oddities to. `this there was
the positive affidavit of the delhadast himself, that
he never bad to his knowledge airy &elk* ort tram-
amiss with thisx Hulse, sad that to hisArsowledge
he never sold hint the pamphlet is questiesi. Us-