Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-07-06T00:00:00

Aile. Justice LITTLEDALE Sat at NVisi Prius for a short titne, and ttied several undefended causes. After the ether Judges came into Court, judgment was moved by 1!r. 4I5Arx in the case of THE KING V. 3IA2{CHEE. ehis as en indictment against the editorof the Bristo Mercury fv;o libes on Sir Alexander W'ilson inserted In that paper under the signattire of " Quiz," in- May ana August, 1322. The libels imputee to Sir Alexsader WVilson cowardice In his behaviour as an Weer in tht Cherstow Yeomanry, when that volunteer regiment was called out to quell certain disturbances in the county of Mon- Srouthi The case was mentioned last Wednesday, but stood ever cGn a suggestion that the defendant should go before the Mlaster, which proved ineffectual. On the part of the defendant, affidavits were read, setting forth that he had been induced to publish the let- ttrs by a joint proprietor whe had a greater interest in the paper than h;sown; thathenadnever beenprosecuted before for libel; and that he was willinJg to make an apology for the offence which he had given. Mlr. Sergeant PELL and Mr. C. F. WELLIAMS addressed the Court on the topics which these affidavits presented, and urged the epeae and anxiety which the defendant had sufered in attend- lDg from ternt to term to receive judgment. 3ir. AmAm and Mr. EnRsxixE, for the prosecution, put in an affidavitof Sir Al exander Wilson, explaining his whole conduct on theoceasion to which tbelibels referred,as entirely free from blame; and the firstoftbese learned Counsel pressed on the Court thatthe defend- ant had shown no disposition realy or effectually to apologize; and that he had annoyed the prosecutor by publishing, in a pamphlet, a rsport of the tria, giving the sarcasms of his counsel, and marking that they elicited the lsuglter of the audience. After tbe Judges had consulted, Mr. Justice BAYLEY addressed the defendant on the circum- stances of the case, and pronLunced the judgtent of the Court, that he shold be imprisoned in the custody of the M1arshal of the AMar- hse for cne montb, pay a fine of 1001., and give security for his good bebaviour for three years, himself in 2001., and two sureties in f 3L each. THE ElO V. TIlMOTIY POWELL, ESQ. TheATTOItKNEY-GENERAL resumed his argument in this case in support of his application for a new trial. He reminded the Court that the first asaigament ofperjtry respected a claim of the prose- cutors, Jones, WeDington, and ,o., to share in the profits vhich arose, or ought tobaIe arisen, from 101 bags of Spanish wool,which they alleged had been taken by Powell, Mditchell, and Co., to them- selves,acer aficdutioutsale. Now the question of fictitious salewas wholly iminaeerial,because, on the explanation given in the answes, the defendants were liable to accoant for the proceeds, since they ad. ruitted tbat the goods were taken by their partner Mitchel, without the cons,nt ef the firm, who were joinly interested in them. The allegaton of fictitious sale was sustained by a letter written by Ebsworth at the desire ofMlitchelL of which it was notpretended that 2Zir. PoWNllhad any knowledge. Mr. Powell, indeed, swore that the goods were valued; Ebsworth swore the contrary but wtiether they vsere valued or not,wis immaterialrand:rio mtiftae cXiIif, there was only oath against oath, and the oath of Ebswertli was contradicted by the entries in the books. Was there, then, either materiality or evidence, to sustain on this assignment the charge of perjury? The send assignment rTepected 178 bags of wool, alleged to have been sol,d by Powell, Mitcelld, and Co. to vl'r. Osborne Yates, and in the profit of which the prosecutors claimed to sbare, But on theirown statemnents, they had no claim to share any thing; whereas the defendants, by their ans'ser, instead of exone. rating them.selves fromn any further liability, rarsed a question at leastagainstthemselves. The statement of the prosecutors was, t1at 1;S bags of wool were fraudulently sold to Osborne Yates; that alftewards, on the receipt of 6,0001., Powell and Co.abandonedthe caoitract; and that atterwards, on the discovery of the fraud, and when an action was brought by the purchaser to recover back the 601., heypaid it to stay proceedings. Now, in this statement it was clear thtat Jone, Welington, ad Co. had no claim whatever; and, as far as the object of the bill ast regarded, the best thing the de'rndants could have done, was to admit the whole representation as accurate. Instead of so doing, they stated, that this wool was not sold by them, but by othes to Osborne Yates- that as the wool had been intrasted to them for sale, they took the 6 0001. to indemnify themselves against the claimns of the owner; and that they afterwazds repaid it. Now, by this an. sver, they did rase a doubt as to their liability; bccausc, if the wool belonged at all to the joint concern of the associated firms, and if it had been bnma fidc sold, they were liable to no action ; but paid back the 6 0001. in their own wrong, and to the injury of their partners But noa was it proved that this wool evcr did belong to the co-patrirship. without whichl there was no foundation laid f3or the charge at perjury, only by a letter, dated 9th November, 183, sdhich Ebswornh swore he wrotet at Bristol, and which forned thconly vestige of a contract of purchase? 'Now the affida. wits gave,<t reason to suT ppese that Ebsworth wtas not at BTiStol at thc time when that letter bore date. And when tlec Court found that there was nra traceof that letter in his letter-book; that lie bad made no claimfor the commission ts w:hich he would hiisielf havebcen centitled for the tr7nsfer; and that the prosecutors had tnot by tneir bill de- manded any share of the large profits which must havc accrued by the cxtrmorlinary rise of price in wools between tlhc pre. ttaded purchase and the sale, thcy would think that great doueabt at least rested on this, the very first stcp in the cause as to ihc second assignmcnt of perjury. lien, too, they rmembered that the case depended msitily on the testi- muony of Ebaworth, and when they found that testimony so shaken, and culled to mind the high character which the defendant received from the witnesses for the prosecution, they would perhaps think that it was not asking too mnuch to request that the case shoald be submitted to the consideration of another jury. The Loim CHIEF JUSTICE.-YOU move on payment of costs ? The ATTOROnEY-GENERAL.-YeS, my Lord. The LORD CtIlEF JUSTICE.-YOU ntay take a sule to show cans-. Itlr. GuItNxY forthe prosecution, suggestedl that all the docu. meats should be dePosited with the officer ol the Court, and opeII to the inspection of both parties. Mr. Justicc RATLEY said lic tIhoutght this peculiarly proper, as be observed that all the letters had post ntarks, except that of Nov. S, I3 by which alone it appeared that the 178 bags of wool were ever the propertyof the two tircui. 1-lr. SCAnLETT said he believed the property in the wool was tot dirputscd; indeed, it was adaiiitted in the answer. Mlr. JusticeBAi-LEY replied, that he was sure it was not ad- mutted, for he had carefully read over evrery word of the bill and answer. and the allegatron was, that this wool remained the proper- tv of Ganrinda and Co., the Spanish house, until it was taken for tire s3le to Osborne Yates. The ATTORVsEY-GEirERtL took hIls ruile to s'how cairse why tecre should not be a new trial. ,fl' THE KING V. MOItGAN, CLERK. rAI n uASS slhovlwed cluse against a rule obtaitned by Air. X MA s.E, calling on AMr. t organ, the rector of the parisl of Eglwy;brewis, in Gla-morganshire, to sh.ow cause wh y a writ ofinandamustshould r,ogiissue,co,mimandinghim to appoihnt achurchwarden. lIc admit- ted that the power of appotutnient WdeS in himself, but gave, as anser o te aplcaton,tha threweeonly thiree persons real. lent in his parish, one of whom ws;an old womian), and the others Tire Loan CHIEF JUSTSCE.....zWhiO, thien, nakes this applica. MIIr. lAUE.-The officers ofthe Ecclesiastical Court, mIy Lord. T he LOB.D CrItEF JtISTSCE...Whiat interet hlave they ? Mr. llAnLE.-They are entitled to eoCrin fee (A laugh.) The LoBD CHisEt JUsTic.-Aiid are we to con, el a clergy. an toappointachtArchwarden, when unte is wanted that the cerk ef the Eeclesiastical Court mnay have his fees ? 31r.31APLE: submiitted, thiat the chutrchl wossldrequireretair andl thae i! ti-hte fll into decay for want of sone Pero w o d be umpdleto repair it. Four years ago there w7as a churclhwardeni zad ttec was no suggstioii that the circurnstances of the parish had ;eIterech ar. BALE observed, that the churchwatden was the old womlan's husband wbo died and left ber a widow. The ILoitr CHrEF JUSTICE said, that if any inconvenience ereown, the Court would grant the writ, but not for the mere parpora of putting fees into the pocket of an officcr. The rule was accordingly dischargcd. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WESTAUNSTItR, JULY 6.