Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-01-26T00:00:00

lhis deter-dant appeared in Court pnrsuaut to the direction given in last term, that he should a p pear tlus day, to which the considera- tion of his case was adjourned. He -toed convicted on two indict- ments for keeping a gaining-house; one tried before Mr. Justice Bayley several years ago, adl in which no judgment had ever been prayea, the postea baving been subtracted from the Crown-office; the ether on a miore recent clharge of the same kind, tried before the Lord Chief Justice. In the latter case, a motion was last terni made in arrest of judgment, on the-ground that the evidence failed to sho.w that the house was situate in the perish laid in the first count, and that the second count, in which no parish1vaslaidby way of loeal desciption, was insufficient in peoint of forn. The ATTO5tsEY.GEssEutL and N~r. L1TTLEDAL3 now con- tended, that there was no occasion to set forth any parish. In dvil actions, where the off'ence was not of a local character, it was nowi unnecessary to mention a parish. The saine.analogy extended to criminal proceedings and even in indictments for murder, the pa- zish was sminateri. ,Mr. ADoLPHUS and Mr. CHITTY argued, that an accuraey-of local 4Vscriptiou was requisite in indictments for offcaes of thi6 natur which were described as nDssnCes, artd therefore wres- Theo o tie to conider ofthi ojection; and in the mean ime uggetedi to the Attoxriey~Giieral that le mnight move for udgent n te other case, in whchthdiil not~fl0 arise. The ATTO EN~~~~~5caL thenentmoveh othAer case, whbich was trieod i2n the- yeajlr 181l7. d fOS jia4ginent 2n the J a mes 's, andetha d it was the resort pripa clrV. ADOLruus, for the defendant, requested time to mcbt thisg. case, which occurred at SO distant a piriod. Th OsTOrdered the,ease to stead over til Thursday, and, in the mean,time,comitUj the defendant to theKing's Beoch Prison. TEHE KCING V. SOUTH5GATE Al,D ANOTHEP. er. SCAICLRTT mnoved for a rule to s ho w canse. Infonaion hAGuld not be exhibited ni n believe) Southgate and Richi. They ad b-apDn to Mr-Charle Vez '"lmst wo PersOnP named (w~ to lllr.tChaurls VteeY tUhaSeneschal. of the coud oted deputies rpration of Grave&enld but the corporation nad a right to insit th atlte clutess of the ofie sdou hOu e performed in person When, tberefore, the defendan pr gs e nte d th e m s e t tlem y c ou rt th atey w e re in fo rm e d th a t th ey c oh d nt bfie y e re a ll o w e d to c t, a nd w ere di re c te d to w ith d r a v . Vth e y ansisted, however,en on rhemini, andmasucesfully Eresisted the attempe ofshe paeoffcr th o expe thr e fm.i n lledpoue i avthe efU ga nubro re-rcattestfyn aha be toshwaade iThe defendant, who wasc ced of eublishin b Palmer's Prin.. PIfes of Natiire, on an atn opped 1b t ano nd whlo was last ter rni emaned to r rafal t omer entece, n th grond o po erty, bths day,.iomi dersa thatiheright have an tmiotiaion of iiaing hent,ep ensed byitor giving up his toc fi staeb thescourt. he toc t of d velrk t ow aipht st r the floor of tered since he wvas committed toeaplysol- The defenAnt nt' - nl not toved for hudgment. eThtdefnto t fav urt i ane alirestn, statinent, he kne had delt in rng ecanR xsted inwo Yu a sne hub isco m cind n- that he had sold variotvr p lication s in defesice of religion that he was ready to deliver up hs -hole s'ock on f anth ich wistian t w rs amoe ntary tort e thai 1,000 n Intuber and that his heal Ohdse gean y sufered from ti-a Prisoniment, anulustb; permanen a inh bacteuredtly sad een from on tnient be in,ite d entl imto should a fnirther con. they O T v m d ite eand tharerthe defendant haould go. to Distafd lane, whee his stock was paced, accompanied by an officer, and. retur with the books, that th, l igh ed to judgeth, thde sacrifice bVhich he wa ne mighthe beeb ento s thte. froThe Carove rdn-o ffering Tuhe case s ccorso lY stood ovet to enable the defenaant to tho. THtE XING V. I~EXXETT AND O0 PED The defendants a PLeDGrciPj~~ut.b,iLdicmet cbarging them He with keeping commonl gaming.bousesE at Wo. 75. t. Jawrres'suppes son. 71, Pallsmalln and No. 6, Paul.mal; and Oldfield wai also calleJ-g n to receive juldgmet for' a keepint a by ing.ho~ in. S urmit reeth St. Jahee's. It moay be remembered th a t jude g mw e nt i n oo f thesled b u t w has m o ed fb r la st te rm e b u t t o eoases wer e adornmo tes?Tered tohait the y deferaparaents th dat nOpportunity of airi. sweingth aiidvit oferd n agrvatonof punishment. They, arealradysuferig uderthesenenc ofthe Court for a similar Affidavits bf the defendants were now read, in which they denied the ciarge rmtde against them of kTeeping a y mmgtable in the King's Benclitpison solemnly swore thdat they had withdrawn from all concern in what they termed "the play world" arnd statea they were subject to disorders which would render probractted imprisonmenthdangerous to their lives. They imputedtotheirr secutors unworthy motives for the line of coisduct they had b3-re and in reference to one of thern Thom Erskine Grant,expressed their.belieftha helbae neverinthehlose to whichfhe hiadspoken. Both of themi had large families;- and Oldileld producedL the affi davits of a nuinber of wine-merchants, testifying that he had engaged in the wine-trade and conducted Thiself fairly in the ray ofbhisbusiness. Oni hepart oftheprosecutor Grant,ao affida vit was read, stating, theat he had experienced great dificulty int bringing the defendants to justice; t'ehat everypossible means was used to intimidate, harass, and opress Ihim ; and that a quarrel having taken placerbetween o r. Olfieldand is partner t r. c aros, clie latter indicted hii for perjgury in the affidavit put in to niitigate hisformersentence, on the grou:ndof poverty, butcomprooised, as the deponent believes, for a large pte azy recompetise. ir. ADOLtPHUoS, iii mitigation ofpunishquent, expressed his as- surancegthat the Court. however they minht jusaty reprehend she tonduct of the defentlatse, ould nor thirnk that of the proseutos ntitled to favour.At'te prs et monment, lie knew that a strong feeling existed in e t epublic 50, agindst those who were guityf o the offence in question ; hut the deurtere placedfar above prej o- lice and passion; th ach ould do what was necessary for the public weal, anl they woulddo no isnore. These men were already suffrer- ing for the:r fault; prosecution after prosecution had been heaped onk them by those w-ho had no moranl claim to attack them, and for the basest purposes; they had already given up the pmactice for which the were indlic ted;, and therefore- enough had perhaps been done for ju'sItice, and for prevention. Thev were broken men ; broken in health and in fortunel; ad it could not be necessary, for any pur-a pose, that they should be utterly cruishedlito the earth, azd de.. prived of the mneanus of providing for their families-by honourmble industry. The ATTonxrY-GENEPAL addzessed the 'Court in the case prosecuted by Vipoud, and in whiich thewpstea had been subtracted 1from- the Cr6ws-n-office. The circumnstance of his appearing to moi-e fo jdment proved the truth of onte observation o Tlr. Adolp~u ,hat the, prosecutors of cases like these were often actuated by the basest imotives. He lent himself tono priv,ate feelings; but was only snxious ffor the suppression of a mnost baneful vice; and should he- tatisfied with any judgmnent -whick. would be attendedl with tbi& result. Mr. GuitNEy addressed the Court upon theinclictmientpcos-,xte- byv Mr. Wun. Smnith. The de."ndants, lie observed, complalneft Lhat they were impoverished; but what had. they which tbkq did nort DObtain by the ruin of others? They urged that they werei5asents - liad they felt for other parenits, to whose children they bad supplieti the meins of ruin a-nd despair? They alluided to thieir ill-health ;* perhaps if a little wholesome exercise were adlded to, their imprisoss,. meat, they mnight fiad. it improve. The trade tI4ey had carried onk was most profitable; and unless the Court pasaed such sentencces, s. wvould renider it a. losing concern, it would still be pursued, to ihee.tde- struction of the fortunes and the morals of thousands. Mr. ReTCH spoke in aggravation on the ease prosecutedl by Mr. Erekine Grant. The Judges deliberated for a considerable time, after which Mlr. JusticecBAYLEY proceeded to pasasentence. The Court,hesaUd, were most anxious to av,oid pu,nishting twicefor the sameoffence ; ast thierefore, ias onte indictment appliedL to the same period with that undier whiich the defendants were suffirring, they would giye no, judgmen't upon it. For the other c_tses, they would direct hard~ labouir to form a piart of the punishment, but chat the act autho- rizing that infliction did not beggin to operate till afterttthe eons- mencerment of the offence, andtiherefore they forbore to, order it on this occasion, though undoubtedly they would employ it in future. After exlpatiating on the pernicious consequencesof gamning, and observinig that the ill-health of thie defenidants, thoughi no doulse brought on. by their course of lif'e, liad. prevented. the C-ourt from in,. flicting addlitional imprisonment, hie pasgt-d sentence; which. wat, that Old fleld, on the first indictnment on whiich lie alone was co-.. victed, shiouldi pat' a fiue of 5001. tha on the second isidicrs.-ent Oldfield should pav a fine of ,11. and Biennett a fine of 2,110o1 that on the thiirdI indictment, the defendants shiould pay at finie of 100.earls ; and thiat each of them should give iecurity for good behavio!ur for five years, himself in U1,0001., andl r.vo sureties in 2,0001. each, and should be imprisoned till sutch fines were paid, t.nd such securitsy even. COURT OF KING'S BENCHI, IVESTMIXNSTER. JAN. 2.1. T1lE XIgG V. FIELDER.