Court Of King's Bench, We...
The Times, 1824-02-11T00:00:00

LAV RtEPOlrT. The ATToRNEY-O.X AsL rose to move thisase, in whiDl Mr. ISergeant Pe2 was attending. The Lo YD CUr}EF JUSTICE.-Is it not out of coutse to takethat case to-day? ItisintheCrownpa~per. The ATTornCzy_GENEaL._.1y Lord, it is rule to show cause. The LoRD CrIEF JUSTICE.-SO iS every case in the Crown paper; I am afraid we cannot take it to-day. The ATTORNEY.GENERAL.-It Is a case of very great import- ance to the country, my Lord. Tlhe LoRD CHiEF JUSTICE.-IS it a long question? From the casc, I should judge it to lie in a narrow compass. Mtr. Sergeant PELL.-On my part it will be a very slort one. The ATTOaREY-GIE2fERAL.-I shall not be long certainly. The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.-Then let us take it now. ir. Sergeant PELL then rose to support the conYvition. It set forth, that Thomas Dove Brooks was convicted on the 30th of De- cember. 1823, before AMr. Clithero and Mr. Creighton. two magis. rrates of the countv of M.iddlesex, on the infirmation of Edward Prockter, for that he suffered and permitted ale to be sold on his premises, not being duly licensed so to do, in the penaltyr of 101. and costs. The case snated that the defendant before M?ay in last year carriei on the trade of a common brewer, selling by wholeale, aZsl receiving the allowances which such brewers were entitled to claim; that in that month he withdrew his claim to the allowuances, gave notice to the Excise of his intention to sell by retail entered his pre- rriis, according to the statute, and since paid the ull duties. Qn the day in question he sold ale, not to be consumed on his preinas, in v hieh noticem :gre conspicuously yosted that no liquor must be drank upa them. Th_e defendant had an excise licence as a corn. mon brewer,but no magistrgtg's license to retail. The question for the consideration ofthe Court was, -whether tfit defendant, by sufferinrg beer to be consumed on his premises under thes i-tircumstances, haa committed an offence against the 35th Geo. III., c. v3, on which the information was founded. ILr. Justice BEST.-The sessions have referred to us NO quistic of form; it is a question of the construction of this act ? Air. Sergeant tPLL.-NO, my Lord, It is no question of &ntt, but of substance, whether the defendant is within this act. The .&AToTREY-GsE.AL..I will fairly tell my leerna friend, that I shall argue that the defendant is not within the act, ls being not an alehouse-keeper, but a common brewer. Itk, Sergeant PELL proceeded. ' He had only to rtad the words of the statute to put the matter beyond question. The 3.5th Ge& IIL referred to certain preceding statutes, and after repeatI them, proceeded to enact, " that if any person shall l s or beer or other exciseable liquors by retail, or suffer or pe- mit the same to be sold in his house or premises, without be- ing duly licensed so to do, he shall forfeit 201." These words were clear and explicit, inclading every description of persona; and by the 9th section, the words "alehouse-keeper, victualler, or retailer," clearly pointed to a description of persons istinct from victuallers, and embraced all seDling beer by retail. The 9th section of the act described the parties who shoilid be regarded as" retailers." The LORD CsiEr JUSTICE.-And that section gives power to magistrates to summon excise officers that tbey may examine how parties are surveyed, and call on those who have made entry as re- tailers, to produce their licence; now that cantnt be an excise licence. Mr. Sergeant PELL, said, he would only refer to the 17th section, which contained a proviso alloving the sale of beer at la'wful fairs, which would bave been needless if alehouse-keepers only were within its meening. Under this statute, the appellant had beert pro- perly convicted; there was neo exceptiotn to save him as a comsot- brewer, and ttierefore he waald seek for his protect ion under other statutes. Did such protection exist? The 26 Geo. Ill., which set out a form of conviction adopted in 3S Geo. III., clearly printed out that every person disclaiming the allowances was to be regarded as " a rerailer ;" so that he might be at once a brewer and a retailer within the statutes. The learned sergeant was proceeding to cite the provisions of this act at length, when- i\lr. Justice BEST interposed, and asked if he bad any spare copy of these acts of Parliament ? In pursuance of this request, a very voluminous paper was hand- ed up to the Bench, which seemed to excite considerable wrprise. As the learned sergearnt was about to resume his argument, The LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE interposed, and said-"1 $ought this had been a short question on a particular statute; instead of tbis we now find that a wreat number of statutes, 12 or 14 perhaps, ale to be referred to, which have nerer been brought underour attentlb. It is really impossible to go on in this way and to do justice The ATTOnRNEY 3ENILAL.-i am extremely sorry that the question should be incenveniently brought before your J-ordsbips but really it is very urgent. The LoRD CHsIEF JUSTIcE.-But we cannot do justice. It a always usual when a case is to be argued in its regular course, to in. timate in the margin, the statutes or cases on which reliance is placed, in order that the Court may be prepared for the dis- cussion ; but here only one statute is alluded to, and we are to be called on for an opinion on many. The ATTonNtxY_GsNEnAL.-.I really thought I sbould only embarrass your lordships by sending you oil these statutes; many of them are not material. The LORD CsesEr-JusTicx.-Yes; but vfe should have alI those which are; how are we to discriminate ? The case must g! into its place in the paper; and let all the acts be brought before us. Mr. ,justice BAYLEY.-IS there not a case of " The Kir,g v. Downes," in Douglass or Cowper, which shows the distinction be- tween the exci:.c licence and the magistrates' licence ? Alr. Sergeant PE_;.L.-No, *ny Lord, it S ain the 4 Term Reports, and I was about to quOte it. Mr. justice BEST.-W'J!Y this case was heard at the sesions, and you come at the end of the teilo. .Mlr. BOLLAND (who was wvith theAttorney-General)-3My Lord, I as.ure Your Lordships there b"Wbetnodclayinpreparing the ceo for the opinion of the Court. The ATTORsEY.GENERAL.-The truth is, that, whether cor- rectly or not, the law t as been supposed to allot the con2won brewer to sell by retail: in consequenice of that opinion brewers bave ild by retail in eyery part of the kingdom; and they are all, in this in. terval, liable to be prosecuted tor penalties. ,Nr. Sergeant PELL.-I had said almost all which I intendet, in the first instance, to ad:lress to your lordships. Having readr the statutes, and referred to the case of the " King v. Downes," a*i^ to the "1 King v. Hanson," which seems to me an authority in poirt, I should have left the case in your lordships' hands. The LonD CHIEF JUSTIcE.-Observing Mr. Attorney-Gene- ral here n the part of the defendant, I presume it is thought in cer- tain quarters, that if the law be against him,it is not fittinF it should remain so ; if that be the case, the question may be set at rest by a declaratory law, or, if necessary, an enacting law, long bWefo next term. The ATTORNE.YO(1.N-ERAL.-I should be sorry to press on your lortlships any tling inconveniently, in the present state of the business of the Court. Tlhe LoaD CsIEF-JiusTxcE.-Wc must employ our timc in such a manner as sh.11 be best ior the suitors of the Court gene- rally ; the case must take its proper place in the paper, and be heard in its proper order. For the sake of example, we must for- bear to bear it at present. H ere the matter dropped. TJIE KING V. tARP?ER. The ATTOrtNEY-GE2NEaAL prayed the judgment of the Court on the defendant, against whioI judment passed by default, for an assault on certain officers who were attempting to execute a warraat at Dover. The COURT sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned for one month, and kept to hard labour in the House of Correction for Kert, and give security for his good behaviour for two years, himself in 401. and two sureties in 101. each. THE ISNIGV. JOHN COLLINS. The ATTORaMY-GEFERAL prayed the sentence of the Court against the defendant, who su*ered judgment by default to a criml- nal informration granted by the Couirt for a libel reflecting on Loea George Seynaour, one of his M1 ajesty's Commissioners of Axcise. The defendant addressed the Court, sta.ing that he was too poG'r to employ an attorney, and ihat he now found his affidavits in niiti. gation couldl not be read, becalise they were without stamps; and he wished thecase to stand over tiil he could staunp them. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he was quite ready to allow them to be read writhout stamps; b;It hefeare4 it could not be done. The COURT said they had no power to allowv this; but as the af- fidavits had not been used, they might &e stamped without a penalty, and the case might stand over for the preilent- THE XING Y. DAVID SYLYAYUS. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL prayed for judgment on the defend. ant, a poor Velechman unable to speak Euglist. for a vtry violtnt assault on an Excise-officer at Cardigan. The COURT sentenced the detendant to be im'isoned for six months in Hereford gaon. THE XING V. WM. WrLLIS. The ATTORNEY-GENEItAL prayed for judgment on tte defend- ant, whe hba pleaded guilty to an information charging b-n with offering a bribe to a revenue-officer. On the part of the defendant, affidavits were put In seting btrth that he had intended the articles smuggled for presents; that he bed lost them all, and suffered much; and that he bad borne sn excel- lent charatter. TheCOURT, adverting to tbose circumstances, onrly sentenced the defendant to be imprisoned for a month in the Kinge Bcsnch prison. THE KING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF SIR WM. XUXROLZI, V. THE PROPRIETOR, PRINTER, AND PUBLISHER. or TiE INDIAN OBISERVER. The ATTomucY-GENEItAL moved for nrule caling on the piro- prietor, printer, and publisher, of a weeldy newspaper called the Indian Obiterver, to show cause why a criminal information xhould not be exhibited against them, on affidavits disclosing the following facts --On Saturday, a large placard was posted on the outside ot the office, intimating hat lin the paper "n account of a gross fraud practised by Sir Villiamn XRuiboll tO iheaniount of 350,0001. would appear, for which he had been expelled ftoxu lndia. Str Williirn, being inffiormned of this placardi sent his sollor te demand that it might be removed, but met wth a refusal. tanthe foUowing day, another large placard was exhibited to the same e1fflt, and couched in terms equally offeusive. He then purchased a copy of the "early edition" of the paPer which contauleu tiellatint1en which the complaint was fbuadeda It charged that the firm of Piler and Co., bankers, fit Hydrabad, of which Sir IV. Rumbold wa A nem- ber, bad lent a %ups of money to the Nizam of Hydrabadaat 20 e'er cent., partof whieli they borrowed from the natives, at 12a per cent., and the interest on which they collected at the point of the bayonet; that the East lndi Company agreed to pay the Nyzam's debts re certain terms; that when creditors came to prove their deb$s, Mtessrs. Palmer and Co. produced a documept by which 'the%ie acknowledged that he owed them 700,0WI., whereas the bad wIlY advanced 350,0001., and sought to obtain the rest by fraud; an4 t6a the firm was broken up; ana that Sir U'. Ruinbold was Ordere* ky Air. Adamn, while he administered the affairsftheteuptry, %o.idve India. Now, in answer te this charge, Sir W. Rumboldi wovtba: his firm never coUected interest at the point of the bayonqt t that the East India Company never agreed tO pay t*e ty2an's 'debt I thut neither he nor any of his partners ever predueed a'd6ctat claiminl more than the Nyzam really owel tbed da; that thie 'fit was stilfin existence; and that be neverwas taderedto quit indiajby Ms. Adam or any other person. The Judges consulted forsomeminuttes, arter vhich. The Lo"n 'BHIEF JUSTICS aslke4 the Attoreiy-Genersl to read that part of the affidavit -which difiexd that Sir Wm. Rinbomld had betn in any way concerned in frudlently advancing 3WODOl., and pretenlded that the loan wsa 700 0IQIL The A TOEY -G&E NYPAL read ulfe passage in WthbieSirW. P.umbold denied thethe ever produced aotntcment sne~hi s etft*ed to in the libel. -Ie had thus denied. exlicitly the dyeh s e against hm. The LoaD Cn=P JrSTIcn.-Probably the wli& havi deei.d so sutch,rua diny zlittle iorcjo5 if ysr thik the a%ff x it4o J I aloo ls y.-aJo tf Cy tbhe iiv s wfl] yoU band there up to U9, 5ntd p vlbthe TOt - NoEY.GFxzRAL proposed that the case should stand mTenhdeCO?jUtRhT accedced, andobserved that the affidavits might be THE KINGs V. RADFORD. This wa-a an indictme-t against a sheriff's officer, for extortion and asga-tlt, tried at the last sittings for Middlesex, when the de- fendant was acquitted ofthe extortion,butfoundguiltyoftheassault. eTheCommow SERGEANT now, by consent of the prosecutor, moved that the defendant should be allowed to depart, on entering intohs ownl recognizances to atppear and receive jdidgment when he The LOHD CHIEP JUST ICE ER;d, that according to his recollec- tion, it waia case in wvhich the Court might fitly act on such a he defendant' recognizances vwere taken accordingly. P- KINGc V. -ORI HttyvT. rld[a D b t. U agai ninlhis7 turhn mjoved fijor judgment on the de- Th_e LRb CHIEF JIJSTICE observed, there was a vacnncy in te Court,; and the motion was dropped. TAIE AtING, oxr THfE PBtOSECUTIGN Or WLLIA'M COBBETT, ESQ. V. - SKETCHLEY, ESQ. Mr. BROUGIeAM moved on the part of Mr. Cobbett, for a rule Eallng on Ar. Sketchley, the chairman of the Kensington turapike trust, to show cause why a criminal information shodid not be ex- hibited against hirz. The toll directed by a2t of Parliament to be taken at the Kensington-gates was oQg1nallv 3d. for one-horse carts; it was afterwards taised to 4 d., and thein reduced, by 4 Geo. iV., to 3d.- Uotwaitlstanding whic- the gate-keepers continued to take the lar."r sum. Mr. Cobbett proceeded against tIhe toll- keepers., and proved beyond all doubt that they were entitled to take no twYre than 3d. Mr. Sketchley occupied the situationl of trmir,r, being also a trustee, in direct violation of the act of Par- 5iaml'nt, which provide(d that none of the trustees should hold W'y office. When Mr. Cobbett proceeded against Levy, he sun- t'noned Mr. Sketchley as a vwitness, and that gentleman appeared, but acted as a partisan of the deferdant, against whom he was called to give evidence, saying. without any appeal to him, " I am sure 3iIr.Levy requires nothing but substantial Justice." To show that tbe tll-collectors ,ere conscious of tleir extortion, they took only the smaller sum when threatened, but in 998 cases out cf a thousand de- manded and received the larger. The 50th section of the nct ex- pressly directed that a board should be fixed at the gate-lhouse con- taining the tolls; yet the false statement was continued instead of the true, even after the convictien of the offendeTs. Mr. Sketchlev, the treasurer, had a direct interest in the maintenance of this systein of extortion, for in 182_ he had ahove 3,0001. in his hands, and on the 27th of February. 1823, 4,0111., including 8631. which had been ordered to be paid. He (Mr. Ihougham) therefore submitted that c1r.Sketchlev had acted improperly in not putting up the board, and also in not rendering his accounts pursuant to the statute. The COUnT asked whether the affidavits stated that ativ meeting was held at which he could have rendered them ? MV r. BROItGHA.,t replied, that his affidavits did not so state; but that Mr. Sketct.ley, holding a double character, ought not to protect himself for Dtit rendering an account as treasurer by his own default in not calli:ag a mneeting as trustee. The ,OURT asked whether the affidavits stated that the depo. fents believed Mr. Sketchley to be actuated by a corrupt motive in Rot *altering the board ? Slr. BnOUGIIAmS replied, that such motive was fairly deducible lrom the facts sworn. The Coun r recommuended iMIr. Brougham to amend his affida- ts in that particular, as they did not usually infer that which the aparty apylying would not swear he believed to exist. that. r4ROUO.S^tAM sain lie would asmend his affidavits, and for apurpose withdrewr .iis niotion. COURT OF EING'S BENCff, WESTMY19l2R) Ffl. 10. RETAIL BtWERXWZS THiE XrOG V. THOM"A DOVE BROOKS.