Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1910-06-22

thor to do, no doubt as q reward for
what he had suffered for their publi-
cation, he declared thatshe alone was
the repository Of his own secret, and
that 1t should die with him. At last
he addressed one Of these letters to
George III, the King himself. 1t was
first published by Woodfall in The
Daily Advertiser, and Immediately
thereafter 1t was reprinted by John
Miller In the London Evening Post
and by Almon, a bookseller.
Without going into details fur
ther than may be necessary to show
the importance Of the issues involved
and the interest which these cases
excited, Lord Campbell's account Of
the matter is simply this: That the
attorney general at once filed crimi-
nal information against all three Of
these parties. In the case against
Almon, who was defended by Sergt.
Glyn, 1T was denied that the letter
was libel. but 1t was insisted that
the purchase of the letter at the shop
OF Almon, who was a bookseller and
publisehr Of pamphlets, from a per-
son In the shop, acting as his servant,
with his name on the title page as
publisher, was not sufficient evidence
to convict Almon Of the publication.
But Lord Mansfield instructed the
jury that in the absence Of any proof
that Almon was not privy or assent
ing to 1t, sale Of the letter by AL
mons servant was prima facie evil
dence Of a publication Of the matter
and the jury found a verdict of
guilty.
Another Case.
In the case Of Woodfall a differ
ent course may be pursued There
was no doubt Of his liability as pub
Usher, but it was denied that the let
ter was libelous, and the grand dis
pute which then arose was whether
the libclous character Of the paper
was a question for the jury, or one
OF law exclusively for the court. Lord
Mansfield held the simple inquiry for
the jury was whether the defendant
printed and published the letter charg-
ed in the information as libelous.
Having done their duty in this re-
spect. the question whether the pa
per was a libel or not was a question
OF law for the court. The jury were
out for many hours, but having at
length agreed they were taken in
coaches from Guild Hall to Lord
Mansiield's home in bloomsbury
Square, whore the foreman rendered
in verdict OF guilty OF the printing
and publishing only.
The legal result Of this finding be-
ing doubtful, Lord Mansfield granted
new trial but WOodfall from that
tlmc was safe, as there was not y
jury in London that would have
found verdict Of guilty against the
publisher o. Junius. On the trial Of
John Miller, Lord Campbell says:
'llalf the population Of London were
assembled in the streets surrounding
''uiid hall, and remained several
hours impatiently expecting the re-
suit. Lord Mansfield had retired to
his house, and many thousand pro-
cccdcd thither in grand procession
when 1t was announced that the Jury
had agreed. At last q shout proceed
ing from Bloomsbury Square verbcr-
ated from the remotest quarters of
the metropolis, proclaimed a verdict
OF not guilty"
Three Famous Cases.
These three famous cases were
tried in the latter part OF the year
1870, short time before our Dec
'aration Of Independence" W., de-
clarcd. A summary OF the law as
laid down by Lord Mansfield was
mat the jury was not only limited
TO the simple inquiry whether the dc
PENDANT printed and published the
paper charged to be libelous, but
mat In making up their verdict upon
the issue they had no right to mnuirc
INTO the intention Of the defendant
as in other criminal prosecution. or
into the innocence or criminalitv OF
the paper charged to be malicious
and scditious, because these were
questions Of law for the court, to be
determined by the court, upon the
mere reading OF the record. This he
maintained had hcen the law Of Eng
land from the Revolution Of 1858,
and that no complaint had ever been
made OF it until the reign Of George