The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-07-11 00:00:00

MATESM AN .

• THE [MI V. VINNERTY.
Mr. CystWOOD moved to have the trial in 'this
case postponed till the Sittings after next Term,
on the ground of the absence of material witnesses
for the Defendant; among others, on account of
'he absence, in Ireland, of Mr. Pensenhy, Mr.
Foster, &c. He muffed this on amended afhtla.
wits, stating these Gentlemen to be material wit.
nesseslo prove many of the facts in the publica.
tion. Mr. Curwoud OM-erred, that in thd present
indictment, the 'usual practice of setting out par.
ticelar parts of the publtealon as libellous was
not adopted, but the whole publication, consist.
ing of many folios, was given. The publication
commenced with stating the apprehension of the
Defendant on his proceeding' with the expedition
to Waleheren, where he had gone with the view of
writing and publishing a narrative of the expe.
dition ; and then proceeds to express his convic.
tion that this had proceeded from personal aniino.
silty entertained against him by Lord Castlereagh ;
a suspicion which he goes on to justify by a state-
ment of facts. It would, therefore, be a question
with the jury, whether these circumstances, stated
as facts, %fere true or false ; for, upon their truth
or falsehood, must tho Malignity of the libel,
and, of course, the innocence or guilt of the.lle-
fendant, depend.
Lord ELLENvoIIOUGII said, if the publication
was calumnious, the Judge and Jury could nut
care as to the truth of it.
Mr. Cuawoun conceived that the question
would be, if. it was calumnious. if the facts.
were true, and the language in which they were
stated was temperate, lie cunceiaied. the publica.
tiers could only be regarded as a discussiou of pub.
lic measures, or of the acts of Ministers, which
could not be denied to tho public of this coutitry,
wiliout trenching on the liberty of the press, so
essential to a free state: Therefore, to prove the
facts stated in the publication, the presence of the
witnesses enumerated in the affidavits was material.
Lord ELLENIIoRoUGII said, the calumnious na•
lure of the publication had nothing to do with the
facts. As he now aniderstood it, the publication
charged Lord Castlereagh with employing the
powers of his office in executing his awn private
purposes of revenge. If such was the nature of
the assertion, there could, be no doubt of the ca.
lumny: The truth or falsehood of the charge was
not at i:sue, and could have no effect on it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hail no objection to
the question being put tf, Lord Castlereagh him.
self ; but still farther, he could inform the
Learned Gentleman, that Lord Castlereagh knew
nothing of the order for preventing Mr. Finnerty
from accompanying the expedition till after it had
been issued.
Mr. FINNERTY presented himself to the attcn.
(ion of the Court, but
Lord lit,t,Etinonot:on told him, they had alrea.
dy heard him by his Cautiscl.
The application for postponing the trial was ac.
cordingly. refused.

RILL V. TAYLOR.
Mr. Ct.auft moved that the outlawry in this
cause be reversed.

Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL opposed the motion.
The circumstances of the case were briefly
these :
The Defendant, who is the proprietor of the
Opera house, was indebted to the Plaintiff in
2,2001. which, after some litigation, it was agreed
should be paid by instalments of 4401. per mouth.
The first instalment had been paid, but none of
the remainder discharged; and the whole became
due in June last. The Plaintiff then, by Mr.
Cowie, his Attorney, threatened to send.an exc.
cation into the Opera House,, if the Defendant
did not pay to the Plaintiff the sum of 2,5001.
The Defendant, terrified at the consequences of
this threat, promised, by his Attorney, to pay
20001. at a given time, and to give a warrant of
attorney for the remaining 5001. To this the
Plaintiff agreed, but the Defendant afterwards said,
that his Attorney had made these arrangements of
his own accord, and consequently that he, the
Defendant, was not bound by it.
This being the case, the ATTORNEY!GENERAL
contended, that the proceedings ought to be in
state quo, as they were before such arrangement
took place.
The Court held, that the agreement and war:
rant 9f the Attorney having been obtained, in con-
sequence of such threats as had been made, under
pressing and enormous difficulties, and given when
the Defendant was in a state of terror and appre-
hension, they could nut be held valitli and the
Defendant could not be considered as a free agent
in such prnceeding. They also thought, that jus-
tice might he obtained by all parties, if the De-
fendant pail into Court, before its sitting to-mor-
row, the balance due to the Plaintiff, being 17601.
together with interest np to the present period,
and all costs attendant on the proceeding fur the
recovery of the awe.
SURREY THEATRr. RIOTERS.
On an application to the Court, to make the
rule absolute which was obtained on Tuesday last
for a criniiiral information against Messrs. Slater,
Sarel, and Barrett, Mr. PARK moved to have the
rule enlarged till next term on the part of Messes.
Slater and Sarel. Mr. PARK stated, that those
Defendants hail not' been served with a copy of
the affidavits till Thuisday ; they then called a
meeting of persons who had been witnesses to their
conduct at the Theatre, but only four attended.
The affidavitS for the prosecution were of immense
length, and it was impossible to collect the at
Tits in ansncr soon enough to be in time.
' Lord Er.tx:Nanttoticai.-1' They don't wait a
multitude of affidavits. If they could, they might
bring a plain denial of the charge, and we would
have attended to their request for -esslareaing the
present rule. There has been obviouseyAetumult,'
and they ought to have given some satisfaction to
the Court ou that subject."
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL...--" My Lard, the
rule was founded on facts, acid they might have
been answered in a moment, if they conk! have
been answered at all. These'lacts were, they
declared on one night that they would bring a
party to disturb the Theatre. On that night they
slid disturb it : on another night they proclaimed
their iutention of letting the Tlicatre remain. goiet

and on that night there was no tumult, According
to their declaration."
Mr. PARR.-44 Your Lordship will, perhaps,
enlarge the rule till to-morrow."
Lord ELLENuonouow." That would be in
effect to grant the enlargement till nest term."
Rule made absolute.

COUitT 60 EXCHEQUER, PILY 18.
'the Judges were assembled this day it, the
Chamber, to give judgment in a writ of error,
brought by the assignees of a bankrupt, under the
31th of the King (Lord Haw/km(lll,l's Act), to
recover the possession of a vessel sold at sea,
which vessel, it was contended, had not been pro-
perly registered according with the provisions of
that Act.
The question in the case was, whether the yes.
sel should be registered in the port to which she be.
longed. In the course of argument on former
occasions, it had been urged that the Acts in re.
specs to these cases provided, that no sale should
be valid, unless the terms of sale prescribed by
Lord Ilawkesbury's Act were complied with.
The Judges in giving their opinions differed.
Chief Justice ;Mansfield, Chief Baron Macdonald,
Barons Graham and Wood were against the deci-
sion. Justice Heath and Baron Thompson on th'e
contrary. The writ of error was therefore
absolute.