Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-06-01T00:00:00

lrts was arule outainea on a ,ormer dav by the Commnon Ser- g-ant, calling on AIr. (Grattan to shbiw cause why a criminal infor. mation should not be exhibited against him for a libel insertedin the tlfornrng Chrronicle, imputing to Captain Davis misconduct as one of the grand jury tbr the city of Dublin. Mr. BiLoUGHrAM, for the defendatat, stated that his client had m2de full inquiries into the circumystances-on wi..icn thc imputation was founded, and had ascertained that the whole charge arose from mistake. Ile had already expressed by letter to Captain Davis his sincere regret that he should have been induced to give currency to theaccusation, and his fuill conviction that it was entirclv ground- less. This apology he now authorized his counsel to reneat in open court: sad probably his learned f,iend wouild think that the chiaracter of his client was abtndantly vindicated, and that the rule might be discharged. The Co0seto0 bSE.RGEANT said, that Mr. Grattan having thus fully acknowledged his error, first by Ietter, and now in court by his csunsel, he felt that Captain Dasis. as a man of honour, ought to be satisfied, and would consent, on his part, that the mile should be discharged. The LOnD C01T.F JusTsCE.ic Then be it so.-The rulc was accordingly discharged. 'TXE RINO, ON TILE PROSEcUTIoN OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE SUPPRESSION OF VICE, V. ADAM SMITH. 31r STORnEs prayed for the judgment of the Court on the de. fendant, wio hiad c4nsentGd to a verdict of guilty at the last Cam- bridgeshire assizcs. on an indictmtent preferred against him by the Society for tte Supprcssion of Vice, bv which he was charged with selling a book containing indecent prints. An affidavit ws-, put in on the part of the defendant, who was a bwox:sXlltr and stationer at Camnbridge, wvith a wife and thrce chi!- derL Ile stated that lie was repeatedly asked by the society's .acnt to seI1 the book, before Ile Parted With it; that he hatl refrained frorn seliimy any works of a siumilar kind since the indictment was found an;d taat ipbhad been put to the inconvenience and expense of three journie; to London, in consequence of the prosecution. 11r.Coopimaddresseri the C-ourt in mitigation, and;Ur. STORKS in aggravation of punislhment. llr. Justice B,.tJ.AYr, after aesverting to the nature of the ofence nn the one hiand, arid tire conduct of the defendant subsequent to its co-nmission o-f thie other, pronounced the sentence of the Court- that he should be imprisoned in Cambridge gaol for four calender months, ard giive security for goad behaviour during threyears, himself in 401., and two -nreties in 201. each. THE KINo G. "CLUTTERRUCK AND RYLEY, EsQRs. Thie aias a rule obta-ined in last term, by Air. Brougham, calling on llr. Clatterbuck anti :r. Rylev, magistr-tes for the county of l'.ectford, to cause why a criminal information should not he exhibited against tiem, for misconduct on informations laid before them aeainst a person named Cooke, under the gamelaYs. )Ir.SCAiILETT now showed cause against the rule. M1r. Cooke. the applicarit,.had gone wvith a friend into Hcrtfordshije to shoot, a. he would have it brlieved, only wood-pigeons, which might be sent as legant prcsenta to his female friends. He was. however. taken before the commissioners for shooting without a licenc, and then produted a letter bearing lestimony to his character, in order to in. once the conmnissioners to deal lightly with hir.; but from wshich. it clearly anpcarcd that his objectw asio kill game,and that he had de- signed toasktleavetofagentlenan toshootoveihis manors, which he had oniitipdl. M-hile-befbre the commirsinners, lie was scrved with a sumnmons to answeran inforrmation tor using a gun, not being duly qualified to kill game ; aril an imputation wais made agairst Mr. Ryley, because he wt,s presnt on this occation .; but AMr. R ler sw:ore tha.hc war accidentally present, and both gentlerien denied any prerinus communiatsion with tile informer. A great deal of cazversatcin, said to have taken plarce on the hnearing, was set forth as ground of charge-not very iniportait, if true; but denied in all itm chief points by ibe parties accused. It was said, that these gcn- tIemen refursed to allow AlMr. Cooke to cross-examine the witnesses: tbis Was not true, for he did cross-exanmine them ; hut they refilr erl to al,rw hinm to delegate the tastof -cross.examination to a friend, who Wal n either counsel ncr nttorneV. It was furtler urged, th;Jt thley -,efusred to adnmit evidence' to contradict fhe witness; ,rni seme nz *cu-e ;irs cast uipon t1letre; a,s if one of them titad said, - Stie: tcttimaoy- might be received in a court of iusits,e but not efb;C temn *' huit tihe ecielence whiich they re- *;sed to receive was rnt off-.-ed to contradict any thins sworn that day but tn diproeve cyi-tence which the witness wvas said to have given btfre Cite com-issioners on the former charge. 'With thisthe rnagirtra.tes etoighe thc-y hiad nothing to do; and4 even if thcv were w-tor,g in eitat supposition, tire Couzrt would not grant a crminal in. I formation for t'e ineri eror. There was no corrupt motive suggest- ed-nonte cold bs eupoose . it was noW clear that the conviction was right; and tler'firie he 6t'sted the Court would discha.ge the. rule vrith costs.I: 3Ir. BRounteAyS tlid liJL lrarnedHfriendj with his accustomed itb- gearityb had omitted the stronapgt points in-the etse, andi had passed x ery iigiutJy over the others. He:would Yepresentitat ttere was-no refu.sal o alnow-cross-sexkiination, anEt no rejection of niaterial evi- der,ce; whereas tlefdets stated, ard to whi6hh-o answer was given, were these-The witne6s was5 asked whrether he had not stated be- fire the cornmisgioners, that he could not identify Dflr. Cooke's per- ,on, and that he dtid not known that -thc nn -n who -was sporting was he, except from wliat his maister, ATr. Sullivan, told him; on wvIhich te Magistrates 'interposed, and ddcsired hiim not to answer the ques- tions, for they had nothing to do wsith what passetd befbre the com- mismioners.. Mlr. Cooke re-non3stratedi and eftered -vidcnce to shLow that the isitness did not knows lhis :prrso ;: but the M11agistraten refu4ed to receive it, because they said it wvould int-roduce " .conflicting testiriony " and, hnwover prblper this niight be' itm trials by: jury, wvhere the decision was; finrA, it would destr,y. all- sumniary proceedings." . Strange idea of sui- mary proceedings! that a nmazrstrate must convict at once, without heariuig', and leave the.feerty ro appeal when no appeal lay,, except for warntotfjurisdiction or errsrs in form. It was -sworn that Clat- terbuck said to Rylev, " This concerns us ;" that thev retired from the rest, and after talking together. returned a.d saia, '" Wecwn nect;" and to this there was no cffectirve denial. It Wvas also sivorn that the defendants wSere rinembers of an association tor the protec- '.ibn of game; and though thcy had denied this it) renrs,, one of them was a member of- an association the rules of wich ie did not qpeccify,but referred teytheir as exhibited in the inm kct-eplace at Watfurd. If magistratep wrree really ;so Mir. Fs . to Miagibe that, they were not to hear what thev caUeld "i coneictino evideincei"i that ;was no reason why they should egcaoe animadversion; fbr, a ns ob served by Ltd l1ltits ;D tire case of ' the Ring vi Sukeley," 12:Mo; den 1e4orts, 175, ' thesiihiness of magistrites is no,excuseavhen they act unjustlY; for they ought to'know that incompetent persons hhould,forbear to pl4ce themselves in situations-o, trugt;" - On the -nhole, therefore, ie -trusted:;the Court would not thitik- these isagis- trates protected by ignorancc; wbidc wax rot allowed as an excuse for the meanest persons brought beforeatrens. - - The Judges conferred togetber for a few mninuhes, after which . The LonD CTisraE JUSTICE said, we think ihere is riot -enough in this case to raise such suspicion of corrupt motive as would justify us, according to the ractice of the Court,'in naking -this rule ab.so- lute. But we also tgink that the expressions used by thbee gentle. nien, and their conduct in refusing the evidence offered, was suffli cleat to give reatonable ground to th;e -oir.pleanent ta suppose that they nvero actuated by suchmotive. WVe think, therefore, that the rile ishould he discharged; but itmust be en piaymentt of costs by lire azagiarerter. The nile Nas accrdingly discharged, on paymcnt of -costs. TIE i;IXG V. COOKE. Mr. TAUNTOM said, that he had to pray the judgment of the CoubrL upon the defendant in this case; but as it would take some tie, i.e should postpone his motion until the third day ofnext term. 'Ur. CA1PBELL said, that the defendant had been in attendanee r.oni dav to d-. to receive their lordship'sj jdganent. CO UBT._- lew -' I-t LILL attend on the third day of next term. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTBITNSTER, MAY 31. -Ikit; NINO, ON TIlE PROSECUTION OF - DAVIS, ESQ., V. - O.RATIAN. ESQ.