The Statesman.
London, England, 1814-11-17 00:00:00

JUDGMENTS.

TUN RING V. HOUSTON.
The AtrampasT-GrptutAL moved the Court for
their Jedgment on the Defendant is this case.
It will be recollected that a person named Daniel
Isaac Eaton, was brought into Court tiering the last
Term to receive Judgment for a blasphemous and
prophane libel which he published, 'of and concern.
ing our Saviour Jelin' Christ, and the Christian
getigion, called " Ecce Ilomo ;" but from his ill
state of health (he is since dead), the Attorney.
General was induced to forego pressing his punish-
ment, in consequence of his laving undertaken to
give up the name of the author of the libel of which
lie was the publisher.. The name of the present
Defendant was afterwards given up, a criminal in-
formation was filed against him, he suffered Jed&
silent (Ago by default, and he was now brought up
to receive the sentence of the Court.

Mr. Daltree, the Clerk of the Court, haring read
the libel, which was of a uature too gross to appear
in our columns,

The ArrowNET-Getastir. put in the affidavit of
a man named CtlArieli Mitcham, a printer, in White.
chapel, treat*. that he had printed the first two
parts of the libel in qesetion ; that Male! Isaac
Eaton had, in the first instance, applied to him to
undertake the task, but that he had refused. The
Defendant afterwards made application to the same
effect, and he, in consequence, did print the work.
The Defendant stated, at the time het so made
application, that he had formerly printed the same
work in Scotland. Upan the work being printed,
the Defendant revised and corrected the press, and
directed that WOO of the, first number, and 1000
of the second, should be struck off. These direc-
tions were complied with, and about 300 copies
were sent to Daniel Isaac Eaton, and the rest
were sent to Mr. Timothy Brown, banker, in Lom-
bard-street. Of the expentes for printing these num-
ber., Daniel Isaac Eation paid 101. but the rest,
amounting to upwards of 1001. was paid by the pre-
sent Defendant.

An affidavit was now beaded in by the Defendant,
before it was read, however—
Lord ELLENZOROUGS asked before whom, and
upon what, this affidavit had been sworn ?
Mr. Dalin.* said it had beep sworn before Mr.
Justice Bailey.
The ATTORNET•GIINZZAL said, that under the
circumstances of the case, it most be considered u a
declaration tumanctioned by an oath.
Mr. Beat:mho, for the Defendant, observed,
that although the Defendant might not be a Christian,
he slid not deny all religion.
Lord Eicaarsoaouog...." If be has sworn on the
New Testament, inasmuch as be denies the accepted
attributes of Christ, his oath cannot be considered
as binding."
Mr. BROUGHAM—cc If the affidavit is informal,
time, perhaps, may be allowed the Defendant to
• amend it."
Lord Et.-tirwitestouout--0. It Is iiiniforen al, but
under she facts not credible. There is a case in point,
In which a woman, before Lord Mansfield, declared
that all religions obligations were alike indifferent to,
her, and her oath was repelled."

_
Mr. BROUGHAM e The Court will, perhaps,
-allow "of a delay, so that the Defendant may place
his declaration in such 4 form as to to t the belief
of the Court."
Lord Er.t.innosotrau—" Are you prepored to
state, that the Defendant *has any description of
faith, by which his oath can be sanctioned, and
which, on a future day, will entitle hint to be-
lief ?"

.5
• . ,
4410 v. 16.
. . . . ,1
Mr. 81101/01/AW" My object for asking for 4.1 This Court was oecupied till three o'clock I. the
1 .
ley, was to rotifer with the Defendant, and learn, justify tog of bail.
tram him, whether there Was any other solemnity i • - XANDASIUe.
11
thin 'kit which had been observed in making the ', Mr. TAOISY moved for a rule to show cause wbj a
affidavit in question, by which he would be more Mandamus should not be-directed taiga olti-womau
f. reiblrbounti. If it is meant to mix me up, either of the name of Costa!, directing her .(o deliver fvp
with the offender or his offeuce,l must repel such an the keys of the parish church end vestry, &c of
attempt." Godalming, in Surreys ttv ;he ckoreh-wirdens of that
Lard Em.xxamtouon,--44 I have no wislv to mix parish. The husiiitod ofichn person against whi)m
you op, either with the offender or his offence; all the pfesent applioition 111gme, 'bid been sexton of
I meant to ask was, if you had time allowed you to the ,crisp church, in quecticin2. and: upon his diath4
confer with your Client, you thought., there was any coniest ftiilikiiviree .04611ecis.40teen Th. Ho
unction by which his, declaration conic!, lm' Riede andfi',o4-• ' n naeted.‘" nda. Whilitiblies
-more binding than by his oath ou the rreitativent, the test Wet part? the' eltaiih:Nititenhid ifilifniati
854
tenth of the contents of which he denies." , the widow of 'r ' foisiat liitdei *Ub the imp..?