The Statesman.
London, England, 1818-05-29 00:00:00

("1.V7
r '

'

r
•
• .. •
•
•

1 :.' ..

LAW INTRAXIG ENG E.
COUR**. OF KING'S BENCH. MAY 411.
TMEMING V. ARTHUR THMITLEIIOOO.
.
This morning the Defendent in this case was
brought up to receive the judge eet of t)se collet,. for
_sending a challenge to Lord.Sirimoork ; 4 ,i,eo4.b.
, 1., ~
was convicted at the Sittings after last xrutips • •
~_The Attorney-General was in his place and moved
,Z
_oldgment of the Court. 'the Defendant then ad-
. their Lordships its the following ternass
":After my trial, my Lords, a trial ISHIIBIIk nay
;,laltasts. ses on my part, I considered. It a duty ilatOe
,!thp Public, as well u to myself, to protest against
opranntence tieing passed upon me.. t, ism been now
"lily 17 weeks incarcerated, sad , hale been in an ill
- ONO of health during the whole Arne. I think my
, :ILord Sidmoath declared that he bad no wish to pur.
; Mee toe vindictively, and that he 'only brought the
case forward for his
.own personal safety. He is
jerfitetly eater tun assure him, ma my writing that
, litter had nithiekto'do with my being apprehended
. ter 001:reason. ,It wet relative to 1801. I have
_ lim!.._ Hi4ordship is perfectly safe. As for bail,
• Ilt*ch weeiroposed to me the last time I wes before
;,#ise Coughs, It was so exceedingly beau and great,
,• Slot not a ;Angle person has offered to become secu-
, At, for me; and if I amk to remain in prison until I
afind bail, I may wait a long time, for I cannot
tsech escesaive bail."
i The krioaNET-GartsuAr. then shortly addressed
Asir Lordships, remarking that the crime of which
. ihe Defendant had, heen convicted, was no small one;
and his attack upon Lord Sidmouth was one, to which
every Magistrate might be open when discharging the
eimportent,functions of his situation, if a proper es.
ample were not made. Re, however, asked only
Jr,g that punishment which jostle., tailed for, and the
, Jet e peace dernesded.
tft
, tir Lordahipi thin consulted for a short time,
, Mr. Justice SATialr delivered the judgment of
• Poore in these terms :
• . _, 41 Arthur Thistlewood, you are here to receive
...beistmtenee of the Coon after a conviction upon en.
Indictment for sending a challenge to the Right Hon.
, Lord Viscount Sidmouth, and upon the propriety of
sialb conviction there can be no doubt. You have
Icerepleined that you were enable to procure witnesses,
from not getting the subpopras from the Crown-
Oft.c'e ;bot upon a full examination of all the circum-
stances of the case, the Court hale opt been enabled
,-to find outaoy just cause of complAirst. When you
t Isere first brought OP, you exerted the option yes
, ',re Poolilled to of pleading eithrr guilty or not guilty,,
yik nd you thought At to plead guilty. When you were
, brought up to melee the sentence of the Court, the
eAttoroey.Genertl permitted you to withdraw that
pies, because, as you stated (without soy affidavit)
eyoe would be entitled to the consideration of the
_Jpri as to your intent when you wrote that leiter ;
. And you did not for a moment dispute that it was
your's. When the trial came on, you made no com.
plaint whatever spill after Lord Sidmouth was esa-
mined • sod thee for the first time, yen stated, that
you had beets unable to procure your witnesses, as
the Crown-Office had beets shut for the then three
preceding days. Every one knows that at such a
Hose it would be shut, and as you received notice of
.your.trial Ist the last Tertn, you had plenty of time to
, prepare yourself.
" The Court having taken into its consideration
all the facts of the case, cannot perceive your motive
for having thus acted ; if you had any legal injury
to 'complain of, the laws of the country would have
given you a remedy ; and, thank Heavers ! we live
ill a country where justice is equally and impartially
std.ninistered to the high and the low.—For this of-
fence, thy Court doth order and adjudge that you
:be imprisoned in hk Majesty's jail at Horsham, in
: the County of &Wei, for the term of twelve Galen-
: dar months, and that at rise expiration of that period,
you de find security for your good conduct, your.
• bell' in the sum of 3001. and two sureties in the sum
of 1501. each, and that you be further imprisoned
until such securidell are made."
THE ZING V. JAMES BARSTOW.
• This was an indictment against the Defendant fer '
a violent aguish upon a Mr. James Barton, to which
the Defendant pleaded guilty, and he was now
brought op to receive the judgment of the Court.
Upon hearing the affidavits on both sides, Lord
- ELLENDonotion interposed, sod suggested that it we;
• a case which might *kb greater propriety be sob.
• mitted to the Master.
M r. WILLIAMS and Mr. Gont.osmtvir, Counsel fog
the Dufendant, acquiesced in the suggestion; end, with
the concurrence of Mr. ScattLerr and Mr. GORSE;
• for the prosecution, thecase was accordingly referred
to the Master.
GLOVER V. THE DRURY-LANE COMPANY.
This was an action by the husband of Mrs.
'Glover, the Actresp, for salary doe to her for per-
forming at Drury-lane Theatre; and a writ of en.
glary having been executed in*the Sheriffs' Court, the
Jus'y found a verdict for the Plaintiff—damages one
' farthing—the original demand being 1001.
Mr. Tasuolr now 'moved to set 'sited the inqeisi...
;Hon, oii thilground ore misdirection of the Under
Sheriff in point of laws. It appeared that daring the
Plaintiff's absencellll6'd, Mrs. Grover was in the
'habit of receiving-14r salary from the Defendants,'
' which she'apPiled to the maintenance of herself and
of her infariectilltlden. Since the return* of the former;
•to this countrY, he' had given notice to the Defend.:
ants not to'pey'his sager salary to anybody but him.;
self ; and 'llotty disregarding this notice, he brought'
the present action. 'The Under Sheriff told the Jury
:that it was foithem to consider e bether the husband's
sitostion,was:ineb is to entitle him to receive his
wife's sakti; they were to consider the rights of the,
husband as well as those of the wife. If the wife
was [iris% undetthe. protection Of the husband, the •
-Defendanterooglit to pay him; bat if they lived se-,
wisely, ind she maintained her Children, the law
gave key a right to 'ostentation for herself and her
children`;.-sod therefore she might be considered as
. thcknehand'i nest to receive the salary. The
Lebeed,Ceettiel 'contended, that this direction was
terifaun4edio' point •of liw ; for, however hard it
might
,asr, under the peculiar circumstances of the
Case, ifietßtrictly speaking, the husbetteseas entitled*
to the unqualified controol of his wifteletrnings.
The Coy Rl', under the circumstances stated, grant
td i rile to show cause.

' • .
t,tu