Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-02-12T00:00:00

LATW REPOn?T 1ne.1kTTOR1KEY.UE\ERALTrenewed hisniotion, made.yester- ay, for udgment on the defendant, who pleaded " guilty" to an in- formetion, charging hini with a libel on Lord George Seytmour, one of his Majesty's Commissioners of Excise. Affidavits were put in on the part of the prosecution, and of the defendant. 'T'he forner set forth the libel, which imputed to Lord George Sevmour, that he had borrowed monev from inferior officers and abusea his trust, and denied that he had given any particular directions to seize a quantity of malt at the defendan0s premises. The latter stated that the defendant was misled by the representa- tions of others, at a moment when his feelings were irritated by a seizure made, as he believed, by the ordersof the prosecutor; that a man named Willey had frequently made such charges ; that, as soon the defendant was undeceived, he expressed his contrition. and of- fered to retract his asgsertions; and that he was very poor, with a wife and seven children dependent on him for support. The ATTORKEY-GExERAL briefly pointed out the nature and object of the libel to the view of the Court. Thedefendant, in a short address, expressed his contrition, and hoped that his poverty and distress would operate in mitigation of the sentence. AMr. Justice BANLEY after animadverting on the serious cast of the offence, and giving tie defendant credit for his subsequent be- haviour, passed sentence-that lie should be imprisoned in the King's Bench for one month, and give security for his goodl behaviour for three Tears. IN THE MATTER OF TIIE CORPORATiON OF GRAVESENID. Two rules in this case now caine on to be heard-one for a mfafl- damicv, requiring the corporation toadmit the deputies of the Senes- chial to act; and the otlser for a criminal inforn'ation against the de- puties tor disturbing the corporation. illr. GASELEE war beard on the part of-.the deputies, after which ThICCOURT expressed an opinion thrcQhe deputies could not claim to execute the office ; on which the rile for the mzandamuis was discharged. The rule for the criminal information was then discharged by consent. THlE KIXG V. " TIlE INDIAN OBSERVER." The A'rTElY-s 7GE KEnAL renewed the nmotion for a criminal intorrnation which he mate yesterday. He had n9w a specific denial of the whole ciarge in the lfbel. It would be recollected that the article containedl an assertion, that 5Messrs. Ralmer anti Co. produced to the East India Company, on proof of the debts of the Nyzani of Hydrabad. a documcnt of tlat Prince acknowledging a debt to them of 700,0001., 350,0001. of' which only had been lent. Sir Villiam Rumbold now swore that the whole of this statement was a mere fabncation; thtat the East India Coimpaay did not undertake to pay the Nyzam's debts; that they never produced any nnstruinent, or had possession of any, except the current accounts between them and the Prince. whih were settled every six months; tbht they never clainied 700,0001., nor any other sum which they had not ac- tually lent. Ai. Justice BEST.-There is a part of the libel which states that Sir W. Rumbold and his partners borrowfed money from the natives at 124 per cent., and lent it to the Nyzam at 25 per cent; how do yOU deny that ? The ATTOnNEy.-GENERAL._ did not consider that as anv part of the charge. nor was mny attention directed to it yesterday. I have no doubt that it can be denied; but I was not aware that it was lile- gal or improper. Mlr. Justice BEST.-Not improper ? Can anv man doubt that it is most improper so to act ? The 4TTORnEV-GENERAL.-I Ao not know that it is against any aw. Hiad the bankers collected the interest at the point of th e bayonet, that rould be an olt'ence doubtless; but that is po- sitively denied. M1r. Justice BEsT..-There was a case about 40 years ago, when borrowing money to lend at exorbitant interest to the native prince was considereil as a ver serious of'ence. The LoR'n CTIIEF JtuSTICE.1f yon can deny this chatge, you bad better do so; you can ment on the case again. The ATTOR EY-GE E.RAL.-WVill your lordships aUow me to mention it to-.norrow_.it is the last day of term ? The COURT assented, and the motion again stood over. T{H KINVG V. COOKE AND OTHERS. This was a rule obtained last term by ilr. Campbell. for changing the venruc in this indictment for conspiracy from Staffjrdshire to 'Aliddlesex, on the groand that one of the defeniants claimed exten- sive lands in Stanordschire and al the adjoining countes. which were in possession of gentlemen liable to serve on special juries, and that libels, reflecting on the characters of the defeudants, had ap- peared in the Stafford journals. ir. SCARLETT now showed cause against the rule, the grounds of whlich he described as utterly futile. The defendants had gone down to Stafford, claiming a barony, ofrering to grant leases at lo-w rents, cutting down trees, and exciting a mob in their favour by the boldness of their -proceedings, and the magnitude of their promise. Trhey now alleged, that they could have nq fair trial in .ny of the counties near Stafford, because one of them claimed large estates; they did not even condescend to mention the counties where suis estates lay, and much Iss to detcribe them; and vet this. vi- sionary claim, now stretched to undefinable lihits, was supposed to operate on the minds of the gentlemen of several counties sworn to decide according to evidence in a criminal case in wlhich the title could not come in issue! As to the publications, thev were muere comments, many ludicrous ones, on the open proceedirigs of thc de. fer*:rts, and the latest of them was in March in last y-ear. One of thenf cliefly relied on was the report of a trial at Derby, in an ac- tion brought by one of the diefendants, James Stamp SuiLton Cooke, for the vindication ef liis character, in which he cornplained of libel. Justifications were pleadeJ, and in the resilt' a verdict for the defendant was retumed on the justifications; ,and for thte plaintiff on the general issue, with one farthing da- nages. The report of this trial appeared, not only in the Staf- fordshire papers, but ini everv paper in England ; so that the ar- gumnlent lolf the defendants ssould prove that they ought not to be The LouD CHIEF J STIC1: said it vras quite absurd to ask for the change of the renmc into Middlesex, 130 miles trom the place where the witnesses lived. Surely the case might be tried in an ad- joining county. Air. CAMPBELL said, he hoped that the Court wouild direct a trial in Mtiddlesex under the circumnstances, especially as-there was a plea of peerage, which they had refused to quash. Thie LORD CHI?F JUSTICE said there was nio pretenlce for re- moving tbe cause to Aliddlesex. Was there any renmsmef at Shrews- bur ? iLlr. CAMPuBELL replied that there was no rermanet on the-Oxford circuit. (A laugh.) The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-Tlhen let tlit case be tried at Shrew5bury.- T11E XI1G V. JOIIN HUNT. Mlr. ADOLPnI5, after four o'clock, .said he would just mention this case, but The LonD ClhrEF JUTtICE said it was mucb too late to take it now; perhaps it would be bette&that it should stand ever till next term. I Mr. SCARLETT, for the defendant, stated that he wished it to stand over till next term, and had intimated tltat diish to 31'r.' Adolphus. Mr. ADOL?HlUS said he had Lo objection on otie conditien. Ile had pressed 'this case. in which he had no personal feeling, with a e4tinacity which mnight seem too great, if tihe season were not knowis. H6 woultd now consent tlhat the casi should stand over, if the de. fendant would enter into a recognizancm to refrain from publishing' any thing iu his newspiper on the subject of the trial; whichl, Sun. day after Sunday, he had done. 1Ir. SCARtET-f aid he could not answer for the defendant, whio was nofhiere; but he would make it bis personal: request that he woouldrefra'su from publisbing: any thiwdof the kind.. The LORD CIEF JUsTIrCE said, he thought thi propo?al rea- sonable, and thought Air. Hunt would have no objection to agree to it. If le attended to-nmorrow, the proposal might be made, and, on ias assent, the recogaizaned taken. THE XING V. lEE tTCHLEY. UT. 3Rou*GVA rcvewC bis mO1Q ill tia Csme, st3ating f tb be now had affidavts alleging a blie' that Mr. Sket4:lry hadbeetn actueted by corrupt mnotives iR forbeariag to put upa, boand, andin the other parts of his conduct refeired io, as trusurer and'trustee. The COURT grantel a rule tosbowv cauc. TILE KING V. SIR CHA..LES WOLSELYf. Air, RUSSELL moved for a rule caltinj on Sir Charles Wolseley to show cause why a. criminal inforrnation should not be exbibited aeainst him for a libel on AMr. Chetwynde,chairmunof the Stafford Sessions, irl a letter published in the BtaiszkPres:. The libel. was, in substance, the aamne with that for which.Mr. Chetwynde moved before, but with this aggravation-that. Sir Charles had caused the letter to be coDoid into the Licfeld MXcrrury, a paper circulated in the neighborurhood of 1r. Chetwyaide' resience.. There were similar affidavits of deniil:of.the charges. Myr. JUStiCe BAYLEY asked how the publieatson was bTcught home to Sir Charles? Mllr. RUSSELL replied, that it was swomn that he slot a.copy cf the British P'ress to the Editor of the Lichlfild paper, zaying, Of course You will insert my letter." The COUXiT granted a rule to show cause. TU:E RING V . STEyENSOx. 31r. BLAc3BiURx moved for a rule, caUing on Mr. Goadl Ste- venson, an overseer of a parish in Yorkshire, to rbopw cause r'.hy a criminal information should not be crhtbited against him ftr gross cr:elty to a poor man a.ndi famit'i. The woman was 'y.s a sttte of pregnancy, and had several small children yet they hrving beea removed under a magistrate's order on. the 23d of MAIy last, were placed by the overseer in a wretched beast-shed opyr, to the inde. mency of the weather, where they remaised for It diays, to the se. rious injury of the woman. The COUnT declined to grant the rule, on the gound of the late. ness of the apication, and on that ground alone, and intimated that it would be the better course for thepartiea to pretir an iudict- ment at the assizes. COURT OF KING'S BENvrf - D 11 THEEING,ON THE PROSECUTIONOF LORD GEORGE SEYS!OUR, Y. JOj[V COlRY.