The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-06-10 00:00:00

LAO' INTRLLIGRAVCE.
COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WIIWIIIINt

JUNI 8

Tut oleo 0. wADDINGTom.
The defendant was brought up in the custody of the
Keeper of Newer/me, to plead to au information for pub-
fishing a libel on the Christian religion. Mr. Justice
Berlin only was in Court, the other Judges sot having
taken their seats.
On being required to plead by the officer,Ttedilington
addressed Mr. Justice Bayley with a relit-moat complaint
of the treatment which he bad received in petioo. His
friends, be said, had been denied omega to him, and he
had. in every respect, bee* treated like a common Moo-
n' therefore implied to .the Court that the Keeper of
Newgate might be directed, to admit his friends and pe.les
fissional adviseri who presented. themselves for adults-
sion. tle also requested that the Coort would grant
him subpoenas to enforce the attendance of certain wit-
nesses on his trial, and would allow him a copy of the
information filed against him.
Mr. Justice Barber informed the defendant, that if
he had soy gentled of complaint, and would bring it
before the Court on affidavit, they would readily hear
him ; but it was contrary to -uniform practice to attend
to any application unless supported by oath. The Coort
bad no power to order the subpmna which he asked for,
bat the proper course was to apply to the Attorney-Oe-
' send, who, if he saw just ground, might grant them as
metier of favour. To a copy of the informationke was
entitled of right, and might obtain it by apprieeties to
• proper officers.
The itefendaat was then required to plead. Nut re-
fused, stilt complaining of injustice.
Mr. Justice SATI.ot directed him to be remanded for
a week, that he might ronsider of the course be would
pursue, and be left the Court in custody.
Tux KING C. liscrog.
This application was made to the Court by Mr. Hap
also e, in the course of last term, for a criminal infer•
nation against the defendant, who is steward to Mr.
Jolliffe, a gentleman who holds considerable property.
and necessarily of great influence in the borough of Po-
tersfield.
Mr. SCARLCTT showed cause against this role, whit.%
bad, be said. been obtained on the affidavit of a respect-
able solicitor, named Atchesee, who charged Mr. Mu-
tor with having committed I misdemeanours. It
would bare been more desirable bad these charges as-
sumed a more specific shape, and condescended- upon
more defined particulars—then they could have been
better answered. The real fact was, that Mr. Atcheson,
who was a man of property also. had taken up his coma-
try residence at Petertheld, and done various acts to de-
monstrate the interest he was disposed to take in the
affairs of the borough. Now the misvemeanours which
the defendant had committed were merely a feeling el-
pressive of his determination to prefer the interest a/
his own patron and friend to that of Mr. Atchesoo, to
the borough. The affidavit charged Mr. Hector with
summoning jurors, and appointing a returning officer
for elections of Mayor of the borough, with the view of
forwavling the canvassing purposesof Mr. Jolliffe. Now
he (kir. Scarlett) challenged his Learned Friends to
point eat a single fact to justify the criminal imputa-
tions levelled at Mr. Hector. On the face of the era
ceeding there were certainly no grounds for sutaintag
a criminal information.
Mr. HARRISON. in reply, contended that the affidavits
filed is Court detailed sufficient matter to support the
corrupt inference ascribed to Mr. Hector, and to show
that he selected the jurors for party purposes, and to
promote the election of Mr. Joni& as Mayor of the bo-
rough. The ultimate object was elearly electioneerietr.
and the exclusion of particular sad very respectable
persons, sufficiently established the motives whit
mufti tlaajfewkao4.47-7;.:Zos
I w nawer to qneations from tbe Court, Mr. Wale sOM
said that this affidavit did not deny that the object of his
clients was also to promote party in the borough. It
was silent upon that head, and he believed their motives
were pore.
The Cover said, that as other questions were involved
is the present, they would postpone delivering their
opinion upon the rule until the first day of next term.
I The Court rose at fire o'clock.

ARCHES COURT—SATuaDAT, J.:mg S.

GILL V. GILL.

Ie a former stage of this cause, we reported (on
the 15th of February last) the Judge's recommenda-
tion to Alr. Gill to receive his wife back into bis fa-
mily. and the Court's persuasion of Mrs. Gill's entire
innocence. The cause, our readers may remember,
was originally one of restitution of conjugal rights,
brought by Mrs. Gill against ber husband; to which
he pleadad her alleged adultery in bar. On the se-
cond Session of Easter Term, the Judge gave seetence
in this matter, earnestly recommending the heaband
to endeavour to divest his miod of these unforteuate
suspicions. The Court was called upon to inform him,
that the law would not countenance them, but would
enforce his cohabitation with his wife; I. protect
whom he was equally bound, not only by the laws of
his country, but by every- moral feeling and every reli-
gions duty. In this spirit the Court pronounced its
ti 4 erre, auizning the husband to take his nife home.
to treat her with conjugal kindness, and to certify that
he had done so, next term.

This day, the Proctor for Mrs. Gill informed the
Court, that its recommendation bad not been complied
oith ; and Mr. Gi:l not having appeared to the de-
cree for the payment of alimony to his wife, the Court
waa prayed to pronounce him in contempt.

Nu s;ll.6cieut excuse for Mr. Gill's non-appearance
being offered by his preeror,
The Court pronounced him contumacious. soil di-
rected its sentence to be signified in the usual manner.
As to the other part of the prayer, which regarded Mr.
Gill's nut having received his wife beck, the Court
directed the cuorideration of that to stand over (jr a

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Juts S.

HUNT V. BILL.
This was action for libel, brought by the proprietor of
the Tennis Court, in Windmill-street, against the Editor
of a Sunday Paper, and the Jury found a verdict it► fa-
vour of the latter. Mr. Serjeaot Bosaxiaurr Ibis day
inured fur a new trial on the ground that sparring was
not illegal. The Judges refused the application, Icing
unanimously of opinion that the bunted Cuter JUSTICE
had laid down the law correctly, stating sparring to by
illegal.
BREACH OF PROMISE OF MAR.RIAOE.
MATTHEWS V. REYNOLDS.

Mr. Sergeant PULL said, this was an action brought
by the plaintiff, who was a widow, certainly not in the
bloom of youth, but not in a very advanced abb of life,
against the defendant, who was. at least. ten years older
than herself, for a breach of promise of marriage. The
defendant had acted as executor, on till death of the
plaintiff's husband, which happened in ISIS. Front
that period, to the year 100, he had been constant in
his attention. and bad conducted himself with that pro.
prier, and friendship, so as to insure the confidence of