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

LA TV REPORT, This was an indictment prCteire.i by kHyltonJolIibe, Esq., Al.P. for PetersfSeld. against the defendant, a man apparently in humble life, for the publication of a libellous hand-bill. Air. TALFOURD, in the absence of Alr. SCARTLETT, wvho had not arrived when the jurv were sworn, Itated the case for the prose- cation. EHe said that the defendant had conceived a notion that he was entitled to the estates of which lr. Jolliffe-and his family had been many years possessed; but instead of enforcing his claim by legal means, he used it for the purpose of annoying and calumniat- ing the prosecutor. who was compeUed, by repeated attacks of this nature, to bring the case before the jury. John Wellswas called to prove the publication of the hand-bill. iHe stated that on the 3d of September last, Couling, who obtained his living by the sale offruit, gavehim the paper, and said he had distributcd many copies. He asked him" H ow he got on with MIr. Jolliffee?" To which Coulingrenlied, "I am still at him- here's an- other handbill I have out against hirn, and I will follo;w him up," or words to that effect. The witness was cross-examined by the defendant, and asked whetlher he did not go to his house to obtain the handbill, which he denied. He was then asked whether he did not know that Cou- ling was the most oppressed man in Xngland; he. replied he had heard him say he was, and that AlKr. Jolliff'e withheld frem-him his lands; bathe didlnotknow whetfiEe itwas true. He denied that he received money for giving his-evidence, on which the defendant said t My lord, he gets a reat deal; he will haveproperty by it." The handbili was ten read. Itaccused ilr. Jolliffe, whose name waseexhibitedinlargecapitals, of oppression2-fraud,andpeijuty; designated him as " a monster" and " a villain," and complained, in bitter terms, of sufferings which he had inflicted on the author. This vas the case for the prosecution. The defendant then read a paper with great rapiditv and anima- ration,in which he reiterated all the charges made against Mr. Jol- liffie in the handbill. He asserted that Ie was the heir at la;v of Robert Mitchell, Esq., iwhose property Air. Jollife enjoved aby vir- tue of a will which was mnade by putting a pFn into tne hand of a ladyafterher decease, lie alleged that varnous attempts had been made bybs ancestors to recover theproperty, but-that might had, as l54al, prevailed over right, and they had all failed. He hadhim- self been cruelly treated by the present blr. Jolliffe, at whose instgation he had once been confined in a lunatic asylum, but who now chose to treat him as a mnan responsible for his own actions. He also indulged in general invective against MIr. Jol- liffe and his famnily, ho, he said, had made 50,0001. by trading in boroughs, and had been guilty of abuses as to Churcher's Charity at Petersfield. In conclusion, he expressed hbi confidence that the power of MIr. Jolliffi would not avail him here, and thatthe jury would do him justice. Air. Justice LITTLEDALE, who sat for the Lord Chief Jus. tice, said, that in his opinion the handbill was a scandalous and malicious libel on the prosecutor. The defendant had advanced a claim to an estate, and had made heavy ebarges acainst Mr. Joiliffe, but he had offered to prove neither; and if he had, the evidence could not be received on the present issue. If the defendant had a claim to property, he should prosecute it by due.course of law, but should not calumniate and libel those who were in peaceable pos. sesqion. The Jury almost imumediately returned a verdictof Guilty. COURT OF KING'S BENCH, WEST3EMNSTrTZ- J.TTw A THE KINO V THEOBALD COULIOG.