Court Of King's Bench, We...
kssr. OUIErEY moved for a rule, calling on AVilliam Innell Clement. printer, publisher, and solc proprietor of 'the Mforning .'hronicle, to show cauSe why a crimiinal information should rot be exhibited against Idm. fle made this application at the instance of John Kenrick, Esq.. a maTristrate of the county of Surrey, and who also filled the offices of Welsh Judge andl Recorder of Dover. This ,gentleman complained ot a series of' libels, inserted in the defen- anit's journal of the 3d, 4th, 5th, 7th, 10th, 11th, and 24th of Au- gust, and continucd at intervAs to a very recent period. Those libela were founded oni a fialse account et' a prosecution instituted by Mir. Rcnrick some time ago, and were directed against hilm chiefly in his character of magistrate, ;,nd also embraced general reflections on the margistracy of England, who were attacked through his sides. Some time ago,J)1r. Kenrick was impellei by'a due con- sideration ot' his public duity, to prosecute a man named John Franks, for stealing an clm plank from his premises in Surrey. Franks,a arnn in humble life, occupiedacottageneartotheresi- dence of Mr. Kenrick in SurTey, where a plank, the property of Mr. Kenrick, -as found. On the discovery of the board, Franks was isken before a magistrate; the case was investigated; the wood was sworn to; he was committed for trial at the aessions ; ansd the vitnesses were bounti over by recognizance to give evidence against him. As the sessions approached, the wife of Franks applied to Air. Kenrick, to entreat himn to forego the prosecution on aceount of his la7re family, who were dependent on his exertions for support. Mir. Kenrick, teelingfor thesituation of the woman and her children wrote to the gaoler to inquire bow Franks had conducted himself in prison, in the hope that he might find grounds for recommending hiim to niercy. Having received an exceedinglv good account of his behaviour, Air. Kenrick intimated to Mrs. Fianks that if her hus- band would express his contlition, and plead guilty, he would do all in his povrer to miigate the sentence. This proposal was de. clined, on the allegation that the prisoner was a member of a bene- fit club; and that if he were convicted, he would be liable to expul- sion, and would he deprived of aU the advantages which otherwise he mnight expect from that institution. Upon receiving this answer, i l r. K Cenrick, from motives of mnere compassion, resolved to prote- cute no further than he might be compelled by law; and according- ly inquired what witnes swere bound over to appear. He found' that one party, material to the cse, was not bound over, and ac- cordingly he forbore to send him to the sessions, and merely sent the two men whose recognizances had been taken. With the sameview he retained neither attorney nor counsel; and consequently upon the trial there was no case for a conviction, and Franks was acquitted. On this tranRaction, the attack in the rorr-ingC/ romclck was found- ed; but in order to blacken the character of AIr. Kenrick, by im- puting to him the most base and criminal motives, it was studiously connected with another transaction of an entirely different nature whiclh occurred some years before. At that time Mr. Kenrick was deslirous of purchasing a cottage of Franks. which stood between two portions of his land. Franks declined to sell it; the matter dropped, and Air. Kenrick had leng since ceased to have any wish to become the liurchaser of the premises. Yet the writer of these articles, for the purpose of gratifying his own personal malignity, or of ohtaining a pretext for vilifying the whole body of the ma. gistracy to whom the country was so deeply indebted, represented Mr. }Kensck as prosecutinlgafrivolonls antI unfoandedcharge against a poor and friendless mnan, in order to obtain possession of a cottage w hich the owrner had refused to telL. The first article appeared in the Morning Cf2ronick of the 3d of August, and extended to consi- derable lengh. The learncd counsel here read the aTticle, eliieb re- presented the case of Franks as one of great oppression-set out the negotiation some time back for the purchase ot the freehold.-statet that the sufFerer was a man of gooed character, even on the testimony of ene of the witnesses for the prosecution-charged Mr. Kenrick with having " tampercd" with the wife of Franks, while he was in prison, to obtain an expression of contrition-gave a report of the trial from a provincial journal-imputed the proceedings to the pre- vious disappointmenrt-and concluded with tsome observations on rash commitment, which it termed " the plagae-spot of the English cri- nlitnal law." The learned counsel proceeded to state, that Afr. Ken. rick, by his afflidavit, positively denied that he had been actuated by any unworthy motive in prosecuting Franks-asserted that he bore Po ill-will towards him-that he never tampered with his wite, but -sslt wrought on his pity for her l-usband * and that he abstainedl from presecurtrg by counsel merely from nmotives of commiseration to. wards the prisoner, Hie (hIlr. Gurney) had affilavits respecting the character of Franlks, who was represented as a nmost respectable man; but in the exercise of his discretion, le should forbear to use them as the man himself was not before t'e Court, and could not be hearQ in answer. The foundation beinz thus laid, libels followed in quick succession, purporting to be tront corresuondentr, and to transmit subscriptions for the relief of the persecuted Franks. WVhether these communications were genuine or uiot, Mlr. Kenrick could not say; if they were fabrications, they, of course, deserved the severest censure; Ifgenuine, they were still atributable to that feeling which the original writer had created bygross misrepresentstione,and therefore proved the ouccessof hisnralignant exertions. On 7th August a notification ap- peared in the Morning' hlronicle, that the editor had received 51. and 21. 2s. for Franks, wnich he had iransmitted to the gentleman who furnisbed the particulars already laid before the public, andsome luo dicroas remarks in derogation of the unpaid magistracy, which was a favourite topic of abuse. At this period the attorney for.Msr. Ken- rick made application at the office of the MUorning Clsroniele for the nrame of the author of the libels; time was taken to consider of the demand; and at last compliance was refused. The editor was then -warned that the publications were libellous-tttat the statements on which they were grounded were untrue-and that, in case of his per- severance in such a course legal measures would be adopted for the Frotection of MIr. Kenrels's character. How much impression was made by this warningr was nmanifest; for on thle 10th of August, another letter. announcing a subscription in the same strain, ap. peared; and on the 24th, a letter still more offensive. T'his Icttcr purported to bear date at Betcliwortl, where Mr. Kenrick resided, and-to refer to the lesson read in the church ef that parish on the precedingSun(lay. The writer stated that the lesson was the 21st Chapter of the First Book of Kings, which contains tbe history of " Naboth's vineyard;" that the resemblance between. bis case and that of Franks struck the audience-that alt eyes were turned to the -pew where tho poor man sat, who was visibly affected; and the letter conelaided with a suggestion, that as the histories had been alike in their progress, they might have a resemblance alko In their conclusion. The LORD CHIEF JUsTecE.-Have you affidavits to bring home the publication to the individual against whom you move ? Mslr. GuueEvY-t have, my Lord, a copy of the affidavit filed at the Stamp-office, pursuant to the statute. The LoISD (ItIEF JtrsticE.-Then take a rule to show cause. THE KING V. JA3MES STAMP SUTTTON COOKE. MIr. TAuNToN moved for the judgnuent of the Court on this de- fendent, who was convicted at the Glocester Lent Assizes of con- spiring with his brother to disquiet Sir George Jerningharn (now ?tort StafFord) in the possess:on of his estates, and to ebtain money by false pretence-9 from his tenants. The press of basiness prevented sentence from being passed in Easter Term; and in Trinfty Term it was-further postponed, on an affidavit of a surgeon, that the defend- anti ivas unable to appear in consequence of an attack of- the gout. AIr..Tauntot now, therefbre, renewed his motioll foriudgment. t The LORD CeIEF JUSTicE desired that the niatter should \jtand over till Mr. Justice Bayley, who was engaged in the Bail tNsrt, shou!d take his place on the bench. }, X,CAMPBELL rOse, and said- that he had received no instruc. inok fnr the defendant till this morning. when an affidavit had been -4ut into hishnsds, which he was desiredto present to die Court. .) The LoR1J Cerps JUs'rICE.-You can state the sUbstance of -'the affidauit, if You please. 1r.; CAePZEL.r..-I would rather it were read by the officer. The affidavit was then read. It was made by a woman, who ;qrattae thatsae was nursing thedefendant, who was now confined to, his-bed by the gout, wvhich usiially attacked bim with great severity at -the rise and fallpfthe year. Siteffurther swore thatt)he hand5vtitingstf the medicralatteftdant to a cerdficate annexed was genuinre. :it The LonD CMEF JUSTItSC;-sVj`e` cannot hearthe certificate. Surely.themedlcal man would not hesitate to make oath of that which he has certified. Mr. CAIPs s.r. adMitted that the Court could tiot take rdotica of the certificate, but expfestsed his hope that- the- affidavit dibclosetl enough to induce the Court to postpone the caseforta few days. lIr.TAua>r oT said lie had no objeclioti thatthecase should stanrd over for a week, and, itn thb-intervatl, the prosecutor's legal ad- visers could make inquirses. The case was accordingly ordered to stand over for a wtelr. TEE KING V. GEORGE irARRtsOX -ESQ,4. lIL. J. WLrLIr.rAs noved for a rule, calling on Oeorge Harrisan, E*, to show cause wby an infonnation in the nature of -to q ttar- ranto shoul d not be exhibite.l against him for improperly exer- cising the functions of Alayor of Chester. tlhe corporation of that city consisted of a mayor, two sherifth, and 24 aldermen; and the mayor was to be elected fron 'aiaoneg the aldermen, and by the ma- jor part of them. Now, ibere wee only seven aldermen present when the defendant was clecttj. The Loin CHIuEF JUSTIcE.-Therc have been many questions rai.sed as to the corpo?ation of Chester; is this one of the qucstions which have been already before the Court? Mir. J. WIrLL1A,Sr replied in the negitive; but observed, that he intended to object to the mayor also on the grounl that he was not an alderman, for reasons wvhich had been discussed in previous cases. The CouTT granted a rule to show cause. The motions being exhausted, thle Coast directed the lieremptory paper to be called. Nearly the first case was- TILE KIeG V. STOKES AND OTHERS. This, it may be recollected, was a tule obtained by Sir George Chetydil against the Brhi8jh Traveller? to show caute why a cri- minal information shoald not be exhibited, for observations made on the prosecuter, as a magistrate, in cohsequence of the well-known case of Charles Flint. The articles were copied with some omis- sions, from the British Press, against which a rlue was also obtain. ed. and is yet pending. Alir. BROUGIlAm1now remlinded the (Court that, by agreement, this ease was not to be argued until one whicth stooa ,fter it in the paper, but on wlhichi it partlv depended, had been decided. The LORD Ci'tIEF JUSTICE then ordered it to stanl over. The officer then called- TIHE KICNG V. CAaT.TOr AND OT5{ERS. T'his was the rule aiust the British Press, which was argued in Eaiter Term, by AIr. Searlett and Air. Sergeant Wilde for the defendants, and the Attorney.Geiieral for Sir George Chetwyod; and on which Mr. Russell still remaines to be heard. Alr. RUSSELL rose, anti said the Court woultl probably rather not hear the case in the absence of ilLr. Justice Bayley; but lie should be glad if a day could be fixed for the discussion, as Sir C.eorge Chetwynd wvas very anxious for a (lecision. The LoanD 'C}IEF JtrtTICE maiid it was i(mpossible to fix a dlay without great inconvenience to the public. TIhe case, therefore, stood over. TIIE SING V. HAMIMOND APD OTICERS. MIr. SCAre.ETT 1110Ved for a rule to show cause why a criminal information should not he filed againat several inhabitants of Green- wi-h, and the printer of a journal called itbe Colonist's Courier, for publications afrecting the character of persons wrho hadt recontlyfilled the situation of Gbvetnors and Directors of the poor at Green wich. rhe learned counsel entered into a long detail of the measures of the prosecutors, -for obtaining an act for watching Greenwich and light. ing it with gas, and for contractiag with a gentlenan natned Roes.- lyn to carry the latter design into'eflcct, and superintend the work for 14 3 eare. In all 'hese proceedings the prosecutors had acted bonu, fle, and without the s.iglitest personal irnterest ; but as soon as they went out of offlcc, a cormmittee was appointed to investigate their conduct, who published a report, misrepresenting the facts) ;and vilifyina their motives, for which they now soughit redrcsse rhis wvse foiptwed up by comments in the newspaper, tending to point mlore keecnlv the sting ofthe report, anti to extend its prejudicial in- fluence. '1ltese ptublications excited a strong feeling against tile parties, and created so much uproar, that the purpose2sof a s2n,1- dams granted by the Court for making a rate would probably be defeated. The COunT granted a rule to show cause. Afr. SCARLETT, as we understood, took at present only a rule fur one itstbrmation; we did not collect against which of thie indivi- duals to whom lie alluded. Alr. Justice BAYLE 5 was detained in the Bail Court the whole day,in conscquence ofthegreat nrtmber of bail whio appeared toj ustify. uouURr OF RUNG'S BENCH. AVEST%fM\STER. Nov. 1. b: KING, ON THE "PROSECUTION OF IOHN KENfRICK, _- ESQ., V. THlE MORNING CHRONICLE-