The Sun. — 1832-03-20 (London, England)

BOW-STREET.  Yesterday Joseph 'Volker, printer, of Bell-yard, Temple bar, was summoned before Mr. HALLS and Mr. MINSHULL, for selling a Paper called the Cosmopolite, without the usual newspaper stamp. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charge, by direction of Mr. Arnold, the harrister, who appeared as his counsel. George Colley, a police-constable of the C division, No. 97, purchased the Paper now produced, called the Cosmopolite, and dated Saturday, March 10, 1832, at the shop of the defendant, situate as aforesaid. Witness was served by the defendant, to whom he paid a penny, and received in return the Paper produced. Mr. ARNOLD, for the defence, contended, that in order to prove the offence with which his client was charged, there must he proof of a continuous publication. The Paper produced appeared to have been published on the I Otis of March, but there was no proof offered that a subsequent number had been published. Mr. HALLS said, that the Paper itself furnished proof of the intention to continue the publication ; fur, besides being called " a London weekly newspaper," it was notified " that No. 2 of the Cosmopolite would be published on Saturday, March 17, and every following Saturday— for ever."—(A laugh.) Mr. Arnold said, that this announcement went for nothing, unless it could be shown that a second number had actually been published. A man might express his intention to commit a murder ; but it would not, he submitted, be conformable with either law or justice to hang him for the mere threat, unless some overt act could be proved against him. I❑ this instance his client was charged under a highly penal statute with a specific offence; and unless that offence could be clearly made out in evidence, a conviction could not take place. Mr. HALLS said, that in his opinion the offence under the Act of Parliament was fully established by the publication of the number now produced, without inquiring as to whether any subsequent number or numbers had issued from the same source.  Mr. MlNslium. concurred in this opinion, and observed that the penalty for the offence was mot leas than 51., and not exceeding 201. He was desirous of knowing if the defendant meant to plead any fact in mitigation of the full penalty. . . . .  _ . Mr. Arnold said that it was not his intention to say one word in mitigation of the penalty, it being his intention to appeal to the sessions against the decision to which their Worhips had come. The defendant was then fined 201.  He was then charged a second time with the same offence, and fined in the mitigated penalty of 51. There was another charge against the prisoner for selling the same number of the work on a subsequent day, but in consequence of a clerical error, the information was withdrawn. _ _  The defendant was then charged on flesh informations, with printing and selling on the reverse side of the sheet on which the Cosmopolite was printed, an Almanack for the year 18372, without being duly stamped. He was convicted on one of the informations, and fined 5/. He then gave notice of his intention to appeal against the several convictions, and put in sureties to appear at the sessions for that purpose.  . . HA T T ON-