Star. — 1820-11-17 (London, England)

BEST—So that, by your argument, the offender must necessarily be acquitted, let him be tried where he would. Mr. PHILLIPS would not contend for any such construction of the law. He would suppose the case of a subject of this realm entering into a foreign service, which, by the Act of the Sd of James I. had been made felony. Lord Coke had said, this offence was not triable in the place where the offence was corn-' pleted, for that- was in a foreign country ; it was therefore necessary, and such was the rule of law, that he must be tried in the country in which the port or haven was when he bad so embarked to serve under a foreign Prince ; but this was a case met by a distinct exception in law, dictated by the necessity. f the case. Here the offence was laid and committed within the realm, and the objections, he hoped,would be considered conclusive, that his Learned Friends had argued this case under a fallacious view of the subject. This case was one of deep interest to the party and to the Public. It was an object of great importance to the community, that the administration of justice should not only be perfectly pure, but also unsuspected. He concluded a long and able argument, by expressing a hope that their Lordships would be of opinion the defendant should have the benefit of a new trial. Mr. 13Lacxavanz professed he had nOdisposition to trespass, on the present occasion, longer than was necessary, and consistent with a mere citation of the opinion of others, after the able examination the case had received already. His view of the case was this, that either writing libellous matter was an offence, or that writing with publication was an offence, which he did not doubt, or that publication alone was an offence. As to the venue where this indictment was made, he trusted that his objections would be found so strong as to prove decisive of this case. In the case of death, occasioned by a stroke given in another county, there was, it appeared by the judg. ment, no option given as to the venue, which it was now held should he laid in the cour..where the death happened. Lacy's case was similar, or even  still stronger, who, having struck a man at sea, wbo afterwards died on shore, was discharged as not triable at all, the offence having been committed in no county. The case of murders had supported the reasonable construction of law on all offences which had two distinct pails necessary to constitute the offence. The law was settled, that it wai not possible to try a misdemeanour with the same latitude, as to place of venue, as hid been laid down in penal indictments. In this case, the obvious inference was, that the offence should be tried, not in Leicestershire, where no one knew or heard of the letter, but in Middlesex, where alone it obtained publicity, and the consummation of the crime took place. 44 The King v. Bier"-would no longer be decisive as to writing alone. 44 Tee King v. Nell and Carter" was strong indeed, if it were not now doubted whether it was authority, as the punishment of the apprentice of the printer, who only set up the matter in types, was rather severe. .As to the culpability of keeping by one a libel, it was only punishable in' the Star Chamber, as would appear by an anonymous case in Ist Ventris. The Libel Act decided, that a Jury should be judges of the intention of the writer, as well as the publication; but, in its enactment, it appeared to confine itself only to the publication, and was not applicable to the fact of writing it. There was enough of authority to establish the doctrine, that if a man wrote a libel from the dictation of anothee, he was guilty of the offence of libel. The Learned Counsel then argued, at some length, that there was a deficiency of proof of the publication in Leicestershire. He agreed with Mr. Phillips, as to ,the presumption being so strong that the publication took place in Middlesex as in Leicestershire, from its being first found in Mr. Bickerstaff's hands; and he could not see that, though the facts were certainly different, the principle of presumption was the same in this as in the case of the seven Bishops. Mr. Justice