The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-05-07 00:00:00

14'

,~
/

41"/11.1 - WT. C friIIITMTVZ 0....1TrAT--v; --
TN it PORTSMOUTH CASE. •
like LORD VAR NCRLLOR. WARR opportoaltyof statioft,,
that baring had another eamonusication with the Master
ort Oissnhject, he was now perfectly sativied with what
further had been provided with respect to thoeonnoittraof
the person of the Noble Earl, and therefore the Report
migtti•beconfirtned.
As Holy Thursday w ill fall on the nett Seal, the Lord
cfaftelkr has esproised his intention of not sitting on
that dor.

. • COURT OF KIND'S BENCH,—Mar 6.
Tut wen V. wihtts we.
?his defendant had been convicted at the last Summer
Assizes for the County of Northumberland, ofa libel upon
the 11.rzy attic Dicerle of Durham. In Michaelmas
•Terte, Mr. Brougham had obtained a rule nisi, to arrest
• thejedement, and now on aliening rause, the case was
th4s.r-The indictment charged the defendant with pub-
`belting a libel of and coneerning the United Church of
,rasseland aodireland. and island concerning the Clergy
./..sident in and near the City of.Durhain. The Joey bad
.nequitted the defendant of that part of the indictment
• which imputed the libel to be of and concerning the
iielnated Church of England and I relied, but found hies
(t silty of pahlisbiag a libel *fend concerning the Clerg, ,
. resident in and near the City.of Durban,. The subject of
.thesalleged libel was, in sulotanee, 'strong animadver.
'lion upon the condact of the Clergy of Durham, on the
v occasion of the dcatb of her late Majesty Queen Caroline
• The motion io arrest of judgment was founded on two
• sertmnuis—lfrst, that the allegation respecting the cheese-
-yd of tbe -libel was net divisible, and consequently the
• lletn.;orie could not he enorieted of poblishierg a libel of
toe renrernlng the Clergy in aid near the City of Der,
• • ' ::1114(h. beamed' scalsat allegation was so tied up with the
• I•oreione allegation as to the libel being of and concerti.
• • .brA.ll/ Clergy of the United .Church of England and Ire-
• • . farid,as qt. I. trier the wee i'separahle from the other.;
• • inlilliettensek that the allegation that the libel was of and
• - ..reaupanttuieg the Clergy of Durham was insufficient • and
uncertnin; for non eonstat but this might mean the
1;stiroll c Clergy, or the Dissenting Clergy, in and near
-the same eity.
: • • bait tri-r and Mr. TraDat 'hewed cause against the
• • * ft.; ": I nes divisible, cud that it was competent for the
;. " .• • t, tilt* Rod the'defeddant gulity of a libel of and concern-
rgy.of Ditibam, althoagh-they might be satisfied
•• ' Alp I did not point at the united clergy of England
• . • istd:lvel afserally; cud they likened this to a numerous
4• - gists sift's'''. where defendants had been found guilty of a
i, pert et &charge contained in theasimeindletment; secondly,
. • -thhe errot1411160; that the descriptidb of " the clergy in and
‘, • .
• . nagr the city of Durham," was sufficiently distinct and de-
', *Stone; to warmed. the -Jury In finding the defendant entity .of
• plifsHsitlng a libel of and concerning that body. The Jury
. bed foetid es a feet, that the noel was of and eoaeerning the
esumed from. their
was of the im-
Aied upon
tuthorlty in
support of the
indictment as to
altogether as
`• as the Im-

tie664y
Clergy of
t be die!
tie►t le
ties a Bios!
:ity of Dirt
generality
term. eppliV
Misr

_____...........0ey imasted.
eaasewmpliseaa *at,
• dbiolltien.wes, that
. tlaintit realised spirt
' nine? bob
elediadant ;
‘tisfy certain
GOMIS SON}
'remise. MIMI
-s. in *b• all-
that the
of victory..
.
_..ued and retained. being lel. per sent. over
-owe the sum granted, by way of susuity fee the in-
, testa if the loin.. The fasts stated on the part of the de-
. Impotent mere theue:—The persons who negotiated the loin
• ". for. which the annuity was granted, were Messrs. Howard
• Pad Cribb.., who had bees before concerned In similar trans-
*oleos on-beholf of the defendant. On these firmer an-,
. *Bios the delimiting waseonsidenbly in arrears, and in or-'.
. /ice 0 Fey of Mese arrears for which Gibbs became very im-
p trteette, the defendant agreed to grant en annuity to the
! • plaintiff, who )vas recommended by Gibbs, in order to fee..
. WA the moniy.required for the defendant's emergesetee.
. ilitilvbs, anotepanied by two persons IS witalessee4wmet
dote to Stroud. where the plaintiff met him, and sum'
, usentioned,,as the eontideretion. of the annuity deidi was
put upon the table, and the parties having shield the'
•• deed. • the *Basting witnesses left the room. Gibbs then
took sp the , and after stating the alumna required
_ ti,pey off the rs of the old annuities, mod the sum,
oa ze
due for commission at the .rave of ten pounds pet cent,
.. AIM that lige fbr the expences of the journey, &e. re-
. , Mined these three sums, ani handed over to the de-
fendant only so much as remained by way of balmiest. Ow
. She part of the plaintiff meat of thesefaets were conhiedieted
.b Hibbs, sod by one of the attestieg witnesses (the other
being deed); end it was further Insisted, that supposing.
them to be tree. CBI that the plaintiff was not to be affeetedi
. by thee, an it seas not even pretended that he was a party to.
the arrangement., lie had fairly advanced the money, and,-
, Olen etithsd been retained at the time of granting the;
annuity, sech'reteetioa had been made by Gibbs alone, in
- neprestolw private debt due to him, and could not, there-
, gore, affeelthe interest of the plaiutiff.
Tho Cower, however, were of opinion that the charge of
MitsieJag.the fennel was not fully answered, and that Gibbs
was the agent of the plaintiff, and bound his principal by
:- vet.. The sanalty wes, therefore void, and the plaintiff
.. Brest *live up hie deeds to be cancelled on the payment of
Igo orlasipal end iattiest, fairly and bong fide duo to him.
sx,os isescsoN. AND /111001(11S.
Mr. Sergeant VeVelleat. Cla a former day, kid mhtaluell a
. tale; to *re mass why haanon and Clarke should not be
• iffireek.off tbe roll of Attorneys of this Court. for permitting
'... to practise in their names, he not having been ad-
, .-/ en Attorney. and why Brookes should not be fin-
essed for contempt. fur so doing.
. • - .3..• e matter hadiebsequeatly been referred to the Froth°.
• .. 'Mary, who. now reported Ms opinion, that some of the
answers giver by the parties to dins charges were not
• foaightetery. The defence was, that Brookes was the Clerk
.. :of liaaeson, snit that the latter had used Clarke's tame,
• • bagmen net helve at that time an Attorney of this Coort.
. Mr. Sergeant Past, now O.:And cense ageless the rule,
and submitted that Clarke must be dischs'erred from this op-
_ yqioation, ap he had sworn that he was not an Attorney of
Uhl Court, in consequence of which the Coen could not
exercise that summery jarlstlietioe over him to which At-
• torneye, as Officers of the Court, were alone liable. The
' tcharges, he contended, were fully answered, and if those
*sewers had bees given entruly the parties might be indict-
od,for perjury.
Brookes appeared at the liar is custody of the Mar-
shal of the Ring's Bench, from which prison he had'
Hero brought up by Ugrian corpus. lie was about to
argue that he bad fully answered the interrogatorier, ,
when he was devirtd to produce the books in which the
accounts pf, his salary. as Clerk to Isaacson, were kept.
Not haviiscAltesn in ('oust. the case 'was farther poet-
tilt to-ileort ow (this day), when they were to be
04 A • . .
FR" •

Clew of Derhans. and they must be presumed frc
• •.. ,Imp 4 tams ledge to be satisfied that the libel was of
' : port imputed to it by the indictments. They relit
\ .i.,.
'e.licing r: lirms in Cowper's Reports, as an auth
,I. :, It ihe„,,Ln!. •
1 . • 7' Mr. Isouunsm sad Mr. E. ALDERSON, In suppor
I • AMIS. *fret, that the allegation in the Indictme
etbisch atter of the libel. must be taken &bop
. I
....deMielptivi, and therefore not divis e, inasmuch as
fi ' ,„,.. t r-- 011 that !his was S libel of anOtoncerning the
will and Ireland. and of aoddOneerning the CI
•,' ,‘I . .. set. was one *elle charge, which could not
1 I *•• .14-e.', -" ' :,•: sgpstd; twail. secondly. supposing the verdict to bet
_ rat. el substance, still tbs allegation dist this SIN
.
r . . ; and voesruips the Clergy In and near Its City
M; trgOf liipttivo is "Una, .for uncertainty and gen
~
1t • , ~ olln fists -dr ced ••• CI '" was a generic term.
de •
. - .. -IA atttyisfgyinnit y danoitination of
"... •
....j,.. '.': ~, . •-•••
j 4 ?..--7- * POOTS 1110 k 1131410 consider of :he cone. ''''.
. _ . • ,
. :. I'dotty,
—ION PLEAS -inn a
' • 'ft: 40fig art . -
i . ....; sAi ~• . • -., telagtergaitepe..- 4 .
" ir .• • -,, L. • - WilLiiilliSON C. GONStai. ..
... INV , .•
. ,
• , i
.. , '' et t•leallbeif=floseampllancra e
• .
,•
~ Ong anti IbMetiess.was,
.t+ . pg the annuity. des plaintiff realest
'
#(,,••-• , •pneieselotr. ()Wm, og disposition of lb* 4011
7 - . gralthlrad- heel so retaldsd..in order to satisfy
, - I I' dlie. !tom the defendant, as wadi as to sore
- .t -• , 7. . mof commission agreed to bs paid Is MORIN
~ B.l' 1 .. ' 1/01 of IMO Ikolkuity. It was stated elm, In
•• • dbleh this application wee grounded, I
; , ipfsalon tires claimed was illegal, on imam 01
• the sum demanded and retained, being lOC per oo
.mad -shove the suns granted, by way of amenity foe