The Statesman.
London, England, 1824-02-12 00:00:00

TILE STATESMAN

COURT OF KINGS UENCIL—WEDNatioAt.

THE KING V. JOHN MIRE,.
The defendant pleaded guilty to an information filed
against hint in the Court of King's Bench, for a libel pub-
lished in a letter, of and concerning Lord George Sey-
mour, one of the Chief Commissioners of Excise. Some
malt had been seined on the premiges of the defendant, and
it appeared that in a moment of irritation he wrote a letter
to Lord George Seymour, charging him with having gone
out of his way to direct this seizure, and further charging
him with being in the habit of borrowing money from a
common officer of Excise, who obtained it by committing
frauds on the revenue, and that Lord G. Seymour knew of
those frauds. • The Noble Lord in his affidavits distinctly
denied the tenth of these charges, or that there was any
shadow of ground for them. The defendant now put in
an affidavit, stating that he wrote the letter in a moment of
irritation, and under the belief that what he stated was
true, as he had been informed of the circumstances by ano-
ther person whom he named ; that when he found he had
been deceived by his informant, he addressed a letter to
Lord George Seymour offering to retract the charge in
such terms as his Lordship should suggest; that be was
truly sorry for his offence, and had a large family to
support.
Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL stated that though he felt it
to be his duty to the public to pray the jadgment of the
Court upon the defendant, and to demand that some
punishment should be inflicted upon him, yet upon the
part of Lord G. Seymour he had to say, that thlt Neb!e
Lord did not press for punishment of a severe character.
Under these circumstances, the sentence of the Court
was, that the defendant be committed to the custody of the
Marshal of the Marslialsea for one month, and that he en-
ter into recognizances for his goad behaviour fur three
years, himself in 441/. and iwo sureties in 20/. each.
The Ktsio V. SoUTHGATE AND ANOTHER.-171 this C3SE
there had been cross motions, one for a t riminal informa-
tion against the defendants for a riot. in endeavouring to
force Southgate into the of ice of a lleprity•Seneschal of
the Borough of Gravesend, and the other for a Mandamus
to the Mayor of Gravesend to admit Southgate to Ow oilier
of D puty-Seneschal, to wlolh he had been appointed by
his Principal, Both motion's now came on together; and
Mr. GA.-FLEE and Mr. Cerra's. being heard fur the defend-
ants, and Mr. ATTORNEY-GENERAL fur the Crown,
The Covicr thought that the motion fur a .Ilandamus
was utterly untenalle, the principal Seneschal haviiia no
authority to appoint a Deputy; and it being agreed that
the criminal information should be abandon. d, both rules
, were discharged.
THE KING V. RICHARD STAFFORD comer, AND OTHERS.
This was a rule, obtained on a former day by alr.
CAAIPHELI., calling on Sir George Jerningham, It Ir.. to
Am ramie why a suggestion should not he entered an the
roll, that the ad., nilants could not have a Mr and impartial
trial in the County of Stafford upon this, which was an
indictment against them for a conspiracy to disturb the
prosecutor in the possession of his estates, and to extort
moan+ from bis tenants, under the pretence that It. S.
Cooke was entitled to the same estates as Baron Stafford.
The ground of the motion was, that there had been an
undue excitement caused in the County of Stafford, by the
publication of libels against Mr. Cooke and the other
defendants, and consegnently that they could not have a
fair and impartial trial in that County.
ScaeLarr and Mr. Ta Leon o now chewed cause, and
contended that there was not the slightest pretence ter
changing the venue on the ground suggested. It was not
sworn that Sir George Jerningham was at all privy to
the supposed libels; whilst on the other hand the state-
ments published try the plaintiffs, were calculated to excite
an improper feeling towards the prosecutor.
Mr.C.AltraeLLurgoil that the trial shopl,l take place Pa
the county of Middlesex, in order to the impartial attain-
ment of justice.
The Cue rue said, that there was not tfie trUtlitest pretence
for changing thu venue to Middlesex, thWdry subjecting
the yeosecutor to the expense of bringing his witnesses a
distance of 130 miles. They, however. say no mown for
objecting to a change of venue from Sof:Y.)49lllre to Shrop-
shire, which would remove a:1 doubt upolutite subject of a
fair trial.
Mr. CAMPBELL acceded to this snggestion, and the case
was ordered to be tried at Shrewebury.
Rule absolute.
TILE VISION OF JUDGNIENI'.
THE ICING V. HUNT.

Mr. Algn.pors prayed the judgment of the Court against
this gentleman.
The town, said, it was too late in the ihiy to take the
case. and stsegested, that the motion for judgment ought
to standover till next term.
111 r. scAßLirr said. that he had intended to move, that
the judgment should be postponed, on account of the 'feral
being so far advanced.
Mr. ADOLPHUS sale, lie had no'desire to press the ease
on. Hs had been seven days in attendance, hoping for an
opportunity of bringing the case before the Court ; but I
if it were postponed, he trusted, that the defendant would
be required to enter into his personal recognizance, not to
publish any observations in his Sunday newspaper, upon the
subject of this prosecution, reflecting upon the motives of
those by whom it was instituted.
Mr. SCARLETT 56194, he certainly should strongly advise
his client to forbear any remarks upon the case in toe in-
tercel.
The Cuter JUSTICE said lie bad no doubt Mr. Hunt
would willingly enter his personal recognizances to abstAin
from any of the observations of the kind alluded to.
Mr. bunt was not in Court.
Mr. SCARLET!' said he had sent his client sway at four
o'clock, but he would be in Court to-merrow, when the
Court might make what order they thought proper.
The case was therefore ordered to stand over until to-
morrow, and Mr. Hunt to attend.
MR. CORBETT AND KENSINGTON TURNPIKE.
Mr. BROUGHAM, on fresh allidavits,reneered the motion.
which he made yesterday, for a criminal infirmation
Mr. Sketctileyo Chairman of the Trustees for the Ken-
sington Turnpike Roads.
The CHIRP Justice.—Does your aftliadts now impnte
to the person against whom you move, that he has for-
: borne from corrupt motives to put up a scale of tolls upon
the turnpikes?
Mr. ItnoccuNst : Distinctly. It also imputes a corrupt
and improper motive with respect to the omission to have
his accounts audited.
The CutEr JUSTICE—Then take a rule to shew cause.
' Rule Nisi.

DIR. CHEEICEND AND SIR CHARLES WOLSELCY.

Mr. W. O. Russabi moved for a rule to chew cause why
a criminal information should not be filed against Sir
Charles Wolseley, Bart., fer an alleged libel on 6eorge
Chetwyod, Esq., M. P., Chairman of the Staffordshire
Quarter Sessions, containing in substance the like libel-
lous matter as that contained in the publication which
appeared in the British Press and British Traveller,
respectively, imputing to Mr. Chetwynd corrupt and
sinaproper conduct in the punishment of hard labour,
*warded against Mr. Flint, the Attorney's cleric. frn this
As therein% the-additional aggravation, that Sit' Charles
Aka mitsed the libellous matter to be published in thr
Litchfield Mercury, which was circulated in Mr. Chet-
savid's native county. and amongst his own tenants and
wghbours. The affidavits completely brought home the
ed libel to the Baronet.
The -Comm upon this statement, immediately granted a
Sale Nisi.
littialliNT 01 MMUS.
• Mr. lit.acnnum,x mpved for a rule to sbew cause Irby
)IVhdoel inforakatlon &mid not be filed splint an Overseer of
the Poor In a parish In•Llncolisblre, for cruel' treatment of

female pauper and her chllelrgit vibe bail been 01141 i by e
Justice's order of removal to the pedals of Skellingthorpe, in
that county. The order of removal was made in May last,
Ind it was &Urged that the oMeer cnsed the unhappy woman
and her children to be exposed for ten days in a common beast
shed. without any covering or protevion from the incl-meney
of the weather, In consequence of which she was SO much af-
freed in her health that her reeogery was despaired of.
The Comt said, that owing to the lateness of the applicn•
tion, after so long a lapse of tine, they c0%1,1 nal interpose in
this summary manner. The allege(l effend-r 'yes li,shie to pro-
secution by indictment. The length of time only which had
elapsed was, however, the sole groom' for their refusing the
motion.—Rtee refused.

PREROGAiIiiZOURT.—WEDEnDev.

ROBSON, FORSIZELE PATTIE, AND WAKEFIELD V. SOCKE

AND OTIIIIRS.
The evidence in this ram has already occupied th
Court nearly two days, and having been conclnded, i-lr,
PIIIILIMORE argued on heha'f of the residuary legat,,s,
Mr. Thomas Charles Pattie bad been for a period of 2i
years in the civil service of the East In li a Com?any. e,..
dent principally in China. In the year 1503 he ohlaive t
leave of absence, and came to England, where he said
with his wife 'and d;argliter nntil 1805; before be left
England again he ma-le his will according to his then cir-
cumstances, his property amounting to between 10 and
20,0001, and appointed foer persons executors. The whole
Of that property was left to his wife and elidd. In 1803 he
returned to China and remained e:-.ere till his death, on the
25th of Novetnher, 1813, never s:eing his wife an I child
after the year 1805. In the hennaing of 1815 his 11.-auth
began gradually to decline, twine' frequently attacked by
asthma; and on the 19th of October, after a very severe
fit, he asked Mr. Lis inaston, 1 is trynlical adviser, res;-eet-
ing his clanger. Mr. Livingston told him that anoOter
fit of that description would carry him off. Mr. Pattie
then sent for Mr. James Craft, an attorney, who ha I art iv-
ed a few weeks before at China, on account of his wife's
health, and had letter of introdoction to Mr. Pattie, and
told him he wished to make his will. Mr. Croft took his
instructions, and on the f01i0.% ing clay the will was com-
pleted. After the death of Mr. Pattie, the will
was produced by the two executors then residin r
in China, before the proper English Anthoritics at
Canton, and it rec,iircel that authenticity which they were
able to give it. The document was then forwarded to tie
execnt ire in Engirt+ f, and read in the presence of Mrs
Pettis, and her da's!hter. The will was not then disputed
by those ladies—an lon the 12th of.lttly, 1816, the will w.ts
proved icy the two executors in London, Mr. Templar and
Mr. Middleton, and the property sworn to he under the
sum of !10,0001. The ;notate remained in their possession
nntil 1819, and doting the whole of those three years
Mrs. Paddle and her tl tughter bad acted according to the
contents of this Litter document, even instituting a suit
in the Court of Chat.cery, compelling the executors to pay
the legacies to the minuet of 70,0001. On the Ist of Oct.,
1819, Mis. rattle called in the will, alleging that this will
of 1815 was not a valid document, and prayed that the will
of 1803 might hr admitted. The prayer of the defrn !ants
(the Rev. Richard Rocks and Mr. Charles Augustus
Recke) was, that the ,till of 1815 might be admitted es
valid. The authenticity of the Last will of 1815, said the
Learned Counsel, nas the only yeestion ; be hail produced
the evidence of permits very high in rank, who had depos.
ed to their belief of the •documert being the deceased's
hand-writing ; attionz them were the lion. Mr. Elphin-
stone, the Chief Resident and Conductor of the Company's
affairs, and 51r. Iles., who was at that time employed in
making a survey of the Indian Feet. The Learned Coun-
sel commented on the various points in the volmninsus
axe of evidence proilecell on both sides, and will he fol-
ty
by other Connsel.—lt is not expected that judgment
ill be given to-day. ,
Counsel for Mr. Hobson—Drs. Monis and Stoddart ;
for Mr. Witketirli—ths. Swatter and Lnelsington ; Un-
Mr. Itocke and others-- Ors. Phillimore and Dobson.