Court Of King's Bench, Fr...
Before the LORnD CHIEP'JR5T-TICE an7d a V. eciaj Ju'ry. The Lord Chief Justice AtuBOTt 16ok his seat in court at half- past nine o'clock. 'rhis cause was-tiaediately called eoQ; the list of special jurors was called over, ah&atnswered to their names; the defendants declined to pray a talks, ;he plaintiff was not in court. A short pause ensued: at last, a'ter hr. SCAtLETT, the counsel fbr the defendante,had declared that he was ready on the part of his clients to proceed, the plaintiffarrived in court, aid on being informed that twoof thepecial jurors had nat attended in pursuance of their summons, prayedi a take. A full jury having thus been ob- M!r. Hunt proceeded to open his case to them. He told them that it had been hitherto always the practice in that court for some junior barrister to open the pleadings; be wis, however, in a situation which rendered it incumbent upon him to undertake that office himself, and to 6tate to tthem the grounds of the acuon, which he had now to manage before them with as much ability as he could. He assured them that ihe did not intend to take up their time by making any display in the way of a speech; all he intended to do was to place a plain unvarnished statement of facts before them, and ta leave them to make their own imipression; premising to them only thus much-that the evidence which he sbould submit would elepend less upon himself thani upon tle course pursued by the other side. The plaintiff in this ease was HlenryI Hint, amnanutacturer of roast- ed corn, living in the parish1 of Ghristchurch, Surrey. The defen- dants were Richard Nevcorb the elder, Richard Newcomb the younger, and Henry Brook, the printers, proprietors, and publishers of the Bostoa Gazette and Li,icolnsktire 4dvcr.,eer, e newspaper 'published at Stamford in Lincolnshire. One of the questions which naturally arose at the very outset of the cause' was this-how came it to pass that the plaintiff, after admitting the publication of the newspaper to be in Lincolnshire, had called upon a jury of the coiunty of Mliddlesex to protect him fron its slander, and to give him a satisfaction in damages, for a libel which bad been promulgated at so great a distance from their jurisdiction? They would hear in the course of the tiial, that the l'bel complained of related to a public meeting which had taken place in Hampshire in the mronth of March or April last, for the purpose of petitioning Parliament to repeal the iissemed taxes. As he had long been a householder in that county, he had been call- ed upon by some of the inhabitants to attend at that meeting, and to declare his opinions on the different points which were to be submitted to its consideration. The libel of which he complained related to the proceedings which occurred there, and consequently the greater part of his witnesses were gen. tlemen who had been present at that meeeting, and who lived within the county in which it had taken place. He had, therefore, been advised that he could not select a more proper county for the trial of this action than that which was midway between the county in which ,the meeting had taken place and that in which the libel had been placed. The present action for damages was insti- tuted for a gross, scandalous, inaliciens, and false libel; and if in the course of the proceedings he did not prove to their entire con- viction that it was as gross, as scandalous, as malicious, and as false a libel in all and every one of its parts as was ever-read to a jury, he would gladl sut4nit to baveavLerdictentered againsthim,and tobesad- dlcdwith 311theexpensesof'the present suit. It wetldbeauselesspiece of affectation in him to suppose that they were unacquainted witdi his iaine and character. They must know that it had been frequently his lortune to defend bimrelf upon the boor of that court against the legal attacks which had, for one cause or another, been made against him ;* they must know that it had bcen his fate, both there and else- where, to apipear as a defendant in courts of justice; but they, per- haps, might not know that the present was the first time in which he had ever brought a charge agaiutat another parson, and that the character in which he then appeared-naroey, that of a plaintiff, calling upon ajury to awardhim damages for an-injury he had hitm- self sustained-was a character in which he had never hitherto ap. pearqd before the pubiie. Se hoped and trusted that they would dispel any prejudices which theymight have been accustomed to feel against hin, in consequence of his political character. The Isresent action had nothing to do with his political charac. tlr, but rcsted entirely upon his priva:e character, and his transactions as a tradesman. Such was his own private opinion, which he had exemplified by his recent conduct. When the defendants requested that a special jury should be nomniated to try this cause, lic was desired in the usual form to attend the striking of i. He had refused to do so, because he was convincel that any 12 hientaken indifferently from the coanty would be iatisfacwry to his mind. When 48 names had been struck, he refused to strike off' one. He said, " I care not who they are. I care not what are their politics, 1 car rnat how they ace prejudiced: this cAuee involves a mere matter of fuct, and one on which no 12 honest men in the comn.. ty can possibly differ."1 He didl not know whether his attorney had )r had not struck off any 6f the 411 namecs first selected; perhaps, in the discharge of his du'tv, hie might have dane so ; but be could ag.. sure them that fthre' was not one personl simongsit those 411 to whom he had the slightest objection, or by whaim he should4 have hadanvreluctanceto hh'rehad this cuuse tried. -He *as informed that thie diefendants in this case were rcspectable neid wealthy-man; he was inifonmed that tlhi detrnaant cewomob lived in a mansion in. Stamford, find was urdycivslyv deemed a roan of propert,y and consideration. Nqow, had ithis libel appeared in Lendon 'n an1 Of those obscure publications which merely last for a day, anid w icli belong to proprietors that are no le!s banikrupt in character than in fortune. h-e might have paid little attentioni to it; but coming as it did from men of respeciability and opulen ce, it becamne the more incuimbent ulpan him to call them before an impartial jury. to learn whiether they hadl done that whiich they could justifv' or not. Heimst no say, a -word wihi reFard to the speciaf p1leadi4g of' thiis ease. It set but with charging the defendants, in a long form of words,twith malice against the pILaintie. They would he'ar from the Benich, thatt if the defendauts haLd published a libel against either hiis public or his private elsiracter, with- out having the means to juistify it, it would not be necessary far hiwn to prove express mai~e-that would be inferred from the libel itself; and in order that thiey might become aF4turintsd with it, he would take the opportunity of reading it in) this; early sts~ge of' the proceedings. Here Mr. Hunt treadf the following pamragrpb:...- " Hampshire l'teeting.-A meeting of beuseboldersaf Hampshire was ons Friday' heldi at the Castle of Wiiinchester, to prepnare antd adopt a petitian to Par]Lam)eniforthe repeat ofthenas-essediaxcs~ The miere mob being excluded by ithe termis of the requisition and tbe weathler being as unilavourable at Winchester as it was, inll.Zondo' the mneeting Was not so numerous; as some that bave be-en Asnisebled' in the samne county:z but 5ttD householderf of the most repetble rank attendad; and the proceedings of the day bear tbundat tes- timiony to their temper and good sense." Now, they seldom hecard. of any atroctouis fulsehiood that was not,up to a certain it,une in truthi. So far this part of the thiing he comlplainred of stated trutht; but it proceeded:-- 'The ob*ets of the mieeting were explained- with considerable abilits, by thie High Shieriff (Walter Long, Baq4., M1r. Carter (Mlayor of Portsmouth) proposed four resoluetions, de. sicribing the unequal and severe pressu-re of the assessed trxes.. These resclutions were highily commended by the Earl of CarRur- von, and Mlesrs. Flemintg and Jertl0ise, Lie eounty members; and beigr gedto a petiition f6unded upon then,, antl drawn up in moderte and respectful language, wasi adoptedl by the assembly.-' So ffir also it was true ; butbit the jury, remark what came ,nexie i-- "That the pr*ceedings of' die meetirg miight want no testimony to thteir propriety and patriotic tendency, Mr. Orator Hlunt attenided to thwart, insult, and vilify all the gentlemeni who took any part ins tite dliscussioni." Perhiaps it would not be necessary for him to prove that ha was theperson meant in this sentence; perhaps it would be admyitted that he was the individutal meant in be des-igated by the term "Jilr. Orator Hunt,"' especilivais' the iearnedI counsel for t-he defence lhad already demigokated f1im by that title in that very Court. [The Lord Chief Justice at this stag of r. Hut'snl dres,hed u te rie o tepeains in suc a manner astsolhide his sce,peraps e mght ay is sile, frmlte Court.] If it thatmeeing o twart inult,andvilify any cslaate admitted that he did take a part inve icsso hich took place on that occasion ; he admitted that he had differed in opinion fromn the gentlensun who moved the repeal of the assesse taxes. He thought that the mneeting was coming at too late a period of the seailon tora for it, especially as the Chancellor of the Exceqeuer had rougt inhisbudget, an-d had declared whtat taxes he intended to rpeal hedeclredthat such were his thoug.shts; but, in ox-. presing hem,andin stating that he conceived thlat lhjere were other taxe whih mihtbe takten off with greater advantage lo the corn- ti-nit, h cetailyhad not behaved more disrespectfully, to the meeingtha hewasat that mioment behaving to the Court. ALii conendd wth s uch deference to the meeting ag lie now did ic the Couirt, tltat the taxes which fail upon all in common ought to be repealed before those which fell only partially-for instance, thoe- uPOn carriages and hor-es. It was in a man's own option whether he kept a carriage and horsqes ; he might do without them, and if he chose to keep them, the tax was easily paid out of the fortune which enabled himi to support them; but with regard to soap, can- dles, coals, mnalt, and hops, it was very difibrent; they were the ne- cessaries of life, which the poor must have as well as the rich-the tax upon them afFected all clmsese, and thieref'ore, in his opinion, the repeal of it was likely to be mtore universaIlly beneficia than that of the assessed taxes. in announicing this, propoiltion to the meeting, he had been called to order by t1he High Sheriff, who stated that it was not within the compass of the requisition, and that be was, there- fore, prevented from putting it to the vote. To prove this point, lite shold call the only reporter front the L-ondon papers who was pre- sent at the meeting. He should cahl one of those very respectable gentlemen with whom the meeting had originated, to snow, tiata so far from his conduct being calIculated to thwart, insult, and vilify, nothing could be more fair or courteous, or more colngenaia with th'e spirit of fair discussion. But to proceed with this lying libel: " WVe certainly did not expect that thtis man, hzowever distinjguished by impstdenoe, would have tdared, after the disclo.Rures of the inet two or thre-e years, to put himself brl'ore the public, or that he wouldI have beeni permuitted to hold up his head in any company of gentle- meni; thie strength of his forehead, however,transcends our powers of calculation, ant courtesy to whonisoever is always commendable. But although courtesy was never so iunworthily bestowed, it isi happy thiat i-lunt W~as listenied to-first, because it gave to the rcsolutiti2 adopted by the meeting the highily honourable tribute of his disap- probation ; and secondly, because it afforded to the Earl of Carnar- von, anti the gentlemen who supported the reEolutions, an opportu.. nisy of putting2 in a strong light, the argunients for a repeal of the Iassiessed taxes in preference to any other taxes." Now the jury must be aware that the man who openly scensed another of' ira- propriety of conduct, yave the party accused an opportunity of re- burtaug ft, ir lie could, with facts. But the writer of this para- graph, not eontent withi the aceusatians which he had openly brt,u ht against him, Proceeded still f'urther;- and what did he say:-1 "After the diselesures of the last two or three years, we did not expect that he would have been pmitted to hold uip hits-head in any company of' gentlemenl i" Whrat disclo-sures did the writer allude to ? This was a base insinuation in the dairk, which couldi t:ot be too severely reprobated ! This was calling on the Public upoln mere surmise to believe the miost dea-dly insinu- atitolia against his honour and character! Hie charged. the learned counsel fior the defendants to rescuxe his clients if he cou~ld trom the vindictive mialice which ttisr paragraph established against them ; he called upon) him to declare what these disclosur-,es were, whichi in thei-r presient vaLgue end undefined state meant every thing and nothing, and were therefore the more cruel ard mialignanit in thleir eclthe; he call1ed Upon 6Mi to put witnesses into the bnsx to Prove whethier there was any, meaning or not in theise indefinite acca. sations. He wished ttie learned counsel to point outt either the time or Place in which he had hiid his bead under a bushel. Ife wished to be told when he had shrunk from inequiry and examination. He called on the leartied counsel not to shufile over that Part ot he ueson bit t met t wththe manly and open feeling ahih gnerllydisingishd bns. If he 'did not, the atro- cit o ths ibe, troios a i wa areay,would be much iscecas- ed. he oen carge whch i conaiac hecould me-et and rebut; but ts scre attckshe culd ec onsht, uchl less overcome. TheitiinutiQs t whch e hd clle thirattention was one which no man kneW shy thing about, which they, asi jurors, could not undestad, nd o whch e, te prryattack-ed, could form no dis- tinctidea he hereore iplord th tresed connsel, as it left them aU iithedak,to al winese tothowsome light upon it. The meeting. He remembered that Mr. Carter wa ayrof Portsmouth. He hadL never, to his knowledge, met Mr. Catrbefore the day of' that meeting, n- i i o eolc hth had ever seen himt since He had sent, however, a sabprena to PoDrtsmoruth to obtain his presence, and he hadt bw the plewasre to see himn sitting before him in Court. fie had heaed a high character of Air. Carter'g in- tegrity and honeur; and he had no doubtit would intlucellMr. Garter to state distinctly and explicitly at once, that the paragraph he had just read to them was false in every material point. If the defen- dants had not Put in a Plea which was calculated to preclude him from proving the f'alsity of their libel,, he would have called the High bheruff of Hamapshire as a witness, to prove that he had not insulted himi. Insult him indeed ! Why he had secondedl thle vote of thanks which Mir. Carter had proposed to theu meeting to give to that ministerial ofaceer. The Hfigh She- riff; so far from thinking himself insultedl, had, on returnl- ing thanks, declared hiis satisfaction that nothing unpleasant -had occuirred at the mieeting, and his willingness in consesuence of it to. call anaother mneeting, wlhenever he should be regularly reopuested ib to do. He would also havle called an witnesses the Earl ot C-arnair- von, and the two respectable gentlemea who represented the county; bet the defendants had prevenited him froni so doing:- for what had thy anwrd to his comrPlains z-not a Plea of' justification, hut a PleZ oaf Ithweegeeneral issue, thereby admitting that a great part of the tibe wasale but leaving; is to the ingenuit-y of-their counsl . e deed it as best he could. He knew that hie e&uld 'have in- dic-ted the defendants for this libel; and irthatcaseheshouldhav.e had no occasion to say that it was false-it would have been suffici.. cult for him to have shown that it was malicious and scandalous, and calculated to bring him into comotemoptz but if he had indicted them, what would have been sad of himn? WVhy, that he durst not- bring an action against them, lest they should justify; He had now brought an action against them, and perhaps it mightbe said that he brought it for the mere sak-e of damages. It was not, however, so; he had brought it to give the defendants a right of justificatiosi. The Court might tall him that he had not now an opportunityof proving thelibel to he false, since the defendants had not ass_erted it to be true; but even as this late period, at this the eleventh ]nsur, he would allow the defendants to withdIraw their plea of not ids, and so enter a plea of ~JustificationZ- The LoaD CHtEr JUSTICE intimated to Mr. Hunt, that, by, tlme rules of the Court, it was impossible that this proposition couldi be aces ted by the other side. S1r. fLunt was sorry to hear it, bat hoped that his Lordship would allow -the defendants to do what he believed had been done in other cases in that court-namely, to prove if they could, anypart of the libel tiey had published to be true. ifany one respectable witnes. (for he would not give them the trouble of calling two) would state to tbejury that any part of the libe was true, he again repeated that lie wvould subamit to a verdict being recorded agaInst him. Air H ant was then proceeding to read the remainder of the libd, when he could not immediately find his spectacles. As he was puttng thtem on his nose, M-Ir. Searlett isniled, on whieb Mlr. iluat said, " It is not age that has weakened umy sight, 1r. Scar- lett; it is not age-you are irmny years may senior, Sir, though I cannot boast your sleek appearance." (A laugh.) -Mr. Hunt then called the attention of the jury to the following paragrapb of the 'ibeir._." Hunt affected to lament the oppressive operation of the malt, leather, salt, and coal-taxes, upon the lower orders, -and of course claimed for these taxes a priority of repeaL WVith respect to some feeling about the coal tax, the orator -may beasincere, fbr he burns, as he says, ISO chaldrons of coals annually in his mock coffee-manufactorv." If this had been the whole of the libel, he should have felt himself entitled to their verdict; but it was not- they should hear how it proceeded :-" His pretence of sympathy for the oppressive operation of the melt, and salt, and leather taxes, is a piece of the most exquisite hypocrisy." He trusted that the learned counsel fot- the defence, if he thought it necessary to vindicate this part of the libel, would not grind hin down by mere hard words, but would give somne reasons, for the imptt tion which was thus unwarrantablv cast upon -him. He remem. bered that upon a formner occaston, the- learned coansel who was now opposod to him had accused him of hypoerisy: but then the , earned gentlemflan hbiIcnidly stated the reacons why he did so. 'hese mlen, however, had done nothing of the kind, and he nosw called UpOn them to offer proot'if they coadd of-thir assSertion tbat he had beta guilty of the most exquisite hypocrisy. The pats.. graPh writer theh, continued..... Thin matt, Who ~an4sin such -a strainl -about the sufferings Of the poor, Iis the Very.- janni&who bat, in Iltle course~ of a year, sMade a fostu`ne of retaUiiag roast6d ry,(hch byth waY isaid to be poisonous,") hcr~,.'said iINI. tntia. IrV.er false in iuation -." atOne siln 6a,~c esfo fromplled,~y copetition, to sell for foureeapon;adpo l.'wichhe 5llrealizes a, Profit Of two or three! h rdPeretO u Iwe have bestowved too bauch attention upon this felow"Hewol 're tow 78 r ad oO 7a the 'r defenmdants had said aotpio2 rye. t wnanosayt Ws :.. ZloigoflOu5.Effectsof roastedCoId Pot eanto ay hattheUSe of roasted corn; hi wbich terepio mnay be; anmd fteni is, contained, will produce effect.qie ovo lenti as -when it is eater in rye brea,odrninreinada great part of the English gin ismaefo e)buw manin %hat even a small qan?~o h osnwl ~uuhhr.f h dose of tei granswihI xcl n oty.ihpno none thie rye poison prodcsgetcedceeurigha, n ani the tomah Nw wehav knowng h stm which tn are of ~ ng roasted corn,frcfeepou theY be salmeoypom,t dr trie iiat the leredh oui ndsel haoue not dloub htvrt thi arosev fromthO be ryetponis and tWhoeet the w ao eluo,o U'utrengeb,dinciaYat-id tloumove, dull phathin ofs theeitid,d tncoteecn threeN -dhay ( atoreerrusine roastedvcrn may ha almost certain tfhat dit HSYgo e trusted that the learye one woul o~o" ct pssoel ithobt Cobnecvtedon, and thalet iathe h wo ld arnedi glo Ut~ia inenuityea e s~uech, say that ths Passaibeewt i un onnected whcoh.I hr werewaucha pblicationt ns the Cottage Physician, w11-hcOw ie thou eymitch. inclined to doubt, let the learned gentle, mar. how i,Wthousb even if he did'so lie (Mr. Rn)did not see bwthe defend ri the defendants. It rather appe4sed to him that cetgeants,; kislowing that their Own name would not be a suffi- cZ ien gaAlte fo-'r thleir slander in chanting lilm withz selling poison tO is stY jay' subjects....that it woulditserve as-the antidlote to the 1,-- the wre spreading aga-insit him-.lhad trunmped up this Col. ;fo~r heir asit ass au ithiority for it, just as learned conse cited ttor thent Pasuth, the namesi of Littleton., Coke, Ellenbotoughi, or uny lincen cpKyious to them, before thev dared to starlp -te ihthe Nnark Of truth. According to these worthy gentlemen, if any' dsincivdul felt anY loss off strength, any dull pan fthhed -ori tnydlinl~ji(M to niove (an he, Air. Hunt, had unfortunately doet's morning), he mutst %dttibute it to the poison containied in tuhe roaned corn Now, if unch an assertion hiad been made 'wyl s ach ting as AiNr Newcomb and his patifiers alone, nobodly woul have belliaareved it. that was a point of which they themnselves Wei-e wheict awue; and t'ley cited in conseqeence this Cott'zgePhysi. eu~.,,whih as to serve their purpoe,~justin thesame manner as Coke and LitUeton served tlhe purpssoielwes i ol now tell them the conduct be hadrf 11 s soo hi lielwould show to im. e h caled uonlohid attsorney and thad lrdered 5hOm to hrceet haintl thled defendns h is attorney,adb procerede hmtprceiagainst themmmialyt leenast wthi neli mtorntferh puocede lgicatiRo tber irzfelibtel.y athought withnnecer mo to stater thisub facAt o o them ibeaus He tiuhadet eda ay bentold sthate thes fact tendane becpaused othe hdelaytheredad been t In, thit ac- thindn. NowPainper~hd bftte enotingyo thatekind oen n hispart tuitent NO!vurse;ehe had proeedn notingohall speed toai paroet th Coutryiro the efects of had publcatiod ikethatl speehdh had proeatth mutoyfo the 'enets f publication whclass itelyale that thchhe hdreadn danr he-admerlycaion uwich wand had notte daled toa pth defens- dats bad oneofi uponeadedo eula austha now turnd toanothe artus tifi thesne ofit uothad beeor te nmiusfotneof turnif to nonhrarct omcf the sujch. at mannber sno 'tolae Eirthne gentleseniof th coreuc. hairng hadin sucall butindependenott paeetrimoenytleftehi by this fa-," tHer,ihe had eploye b th in earlyen patrtmofnyi life hinb thescu- tivation of' his ldand. Havling given it. up to engeage in the tron. bhlmublc fedf poi.iles, he bad been Incessantly assailed by lie Pdatlc~ pape,W with the Cry Of "Why donl't YOII let Pub. lie.nrers-lh, atmidyuprvate business?" HaIng- .. rutctt or two yer n i onths in a cold damp dun- geo t1 Sornersetnshr hehd ncming out of it, enteredi into AlT -5 nd then hewsake,"Wydon't yout give up Your trai]e,anid go to irean tleurthpeop.le there upon politics ?" It wal- singularly strane tawhnewsengaged in politics he was told to mnind his trae ankhe ewa trade he was told to 3nind his DOlitics;s ht ik h l a and the as, o what he would he' could ples nooy A ag. Vithout dwelling further upon these incnsstnces oftedily press, he would niow Proceed to inform hm of te circumstances wrhich had first led himn to ma-ke his ureartion of roasted corn. Duiring the years 1819 and 1820', wen the lower casso'tepol stukh'erin in ail paitio England under great privations, it sthemk i--athbecould notemnplov himself better than in inventing for 5tiisapnandwholesomdedrink sad beverage. He there. for trne hs'attntonto thesubject;and aftervwasting muc.htime upo it an inurrng considezable expense in variotis experiments whic bewas blied to inakte, he discovered that roasted rye would affrdthekid o bvergethat was wanted. In consequence, he estalishd a anuacs~ry frit, and advertisedl it in several ~f he ewsapes. eha no sooner been summoned to York tobe tiedfora political misdemcanour, than the Go. 'vernment seized uo his mianufactory. his implements, and Isis corn; and lie was prosecuted, not for selling a poiionous and lan. )aw~ful compound, but for selling aL spurious imitation of coffee, -0 mich was interdicted bv a stpecial act of Parliament2 made for the Protection of the West India interest. lHe was tried for that off-ence, aistd on conviction was finedI bv the Judges in a penalty of 2001. Wihat did thejuiry think was therconsequence? He hada200 tons of Prepared coTnleft on hisbhands,which, though lie could not sell,be was zstill entitled to give away. He therefore sient a present of two polinds -Of it to the King, a present of one pound each to every member of the Royal Family, one pound to each of the Bishopa, one pound to each of the Judges, one pound to the Attorney and Solicitor-General, and half a pound to every memnber of the Hiouse of Lords; and of thle Mouse of Commions who happened at the time to be resdet in London. He was inconicnenUece placed in communication- with se- 'reral of them, and fh4r nl~ assuired hfir of its excellence, and of their inclination to assist him in introducing the use of it. At the suggiestion of his friends, the Mlinisters of the Crown brought in a bil legalizi.ig the s-le of it. It passed both houses of the Legisla- cure almiost unanimously, and wias ultimately pasted into a law almost without any discussion. That was his miisfortttne ; -for as the infliction of- the penalty for selling roasted corn was knowvn to almost every mani in the kingdom, he could have wished that the fact of the sale being legitimated had been made equally notoriouis. Unfertunately, hiowever, that 'was not so; and thieconse tuence wag, that when lie afterwardR went to offir his roastedl corn fr sale, every person met hint with the objec tion that the sale was illegal. it was, therefore, impsil o i to try it in the country without first makinga xeieti h towni. le th'erefore embarked a .zosideaerortint]exe SimienL H'e took ten shops in various partso h erplsa great ezTP/i~sc; inideed, he paid 1,2001. a year in rn n ae o them.,)~ the often-quoted passage of Sh:akcpeare, it wvas saidl- He who steals iny purse, ste,-ls trash; 'gIut he who filches from me my good name- "Enriches me ?.-.-. No, no, said M1r. Hunt, "Takea fromn me that, whiclisnot ensiehesisim, "And makes me poor indeed." !llut of wbat was it that the authors of this inifamous libel intended to -rob him ? Ile would tell them, and it was necessary that he should do so, since Shakspeare niever conceived characters eo atroci. oURs as theirs (a laugh)-they not only robbed himn oe liis good namte, but endeavoured io rob him- of his purse also. If the;insinuations which they had thrown out against him had any, the-slightest foundation in truth, h 'allowed that he did not deserve -to o-btain relief at the hands of the juy but thien, wbit would they say o de Kng,the Royal Familv,ile; Bishopsi, the Judges, the House of L-ords, and the House of Commons, who, after tasting his beverage, had given him a licence to mnanufacture and dispense amnongz -the lHemeof the land that which was described as a naoxious poison ? If, indeed, it deserved such a descriDtion, he ought to have been pro.. gectited by the Attorney..General for selling as wsholerome that which -was poisonous, instead of being licensed to deal it out in unlimited eantities amoang all his Majestv's subiects. Perhaps matayof thejury ad taste the roasted corn. (A 'laugh.) He knew that several gentle. mee of t,ie bar had (another laugh); andhe thought,from the good looks of tlxe learned counsgel opposed to him, he, toe, mutst have in. dulged in considertable potat ions of it. (Great laughter.) Mr. SCAILLETT denied it, but thaught that, from fr. Hunt's good looks, he must have himself made experiment of the good ef- fece of his own beverage. Mfr. Hunt bowed to the compliment, and said " Yes, I aen in good hecaltlf, and though I wear spectacles, it is not age t4at dims my eyea. AIr. Scrlett does not wear them, thotsghhe is many years mny senior. See hinm there, gentlemen of the junry. bow well he looks. (A. laugh.) I rejoice to see it; for I will ss.y this of himi, and I say it in all sincerity, there is not a man att the har into whose ilands- 1 woald put a,bad cause, if I bad one, with greater pleasure than into t'hose of 5I r. Scarlett. Though he and I have been oni. posed to eacis other in this Court so as almost to be personal viih each. other, at a period when politics were mnuch warmer than they areat present, I feel at present ne sentiment of ill-will towards him. I do not =pect that he will allude to the past with a view of creating a pteJudice against me on the score of Politics: I know his feelings as a. mnan of honour too well to fear that he will, lend him. self to the Inalice of his clients and go along with them in all their petty prejudiCes. If, however, iie has witnesses to prove the mser. lions ot Uin clients, I hope that he will call themi into the box and give us eau opportunity of examining them. Mir. Hunt thenapro- ceedcd to ridicule the idea that prepared rye was poisonous. All f sunaceous vegetables belongingto this country were compounded of fbur ingredients, mucilage, sugar, gum, and starch. There was nothing mnor, in any, and not all in siome of them. In rye there was mucilage, sugar, and starch. He hash subpcruaed some of tb.'mec eninet-chmiss i th contry, to afford them inifonrma- 4./~Pn tht pont. hey ad a ayed his rye5 And WOUld tell tLm sa th reultof her epermens hd benjust what he had ted Isted f re eig pisnou. t ws hemost wholesome .ni al farnaceos foo. He ould ead t the a certificate to that evdi&ngee he .woald have iubpcnaed Sir H. Davy, tohtellhem his opit unponre grdlthngroasteior In theab8senceafthat em8inenrehymist, ie waouldread them thecertificate ofan erAtivo cha mis ot the name ~Of CDooper, who was quit& as respetanbl as Sir H. 'Davy in point of 'charater, arid more extensively engaged in practical chvmnistry. Mr. Hunt here read part o pontr. Cooper' report, from which it appeared that the process to which the rye is subjected by inr. furits method .of manufacturing the, article, is quite sufficient to remove from it every injunio property whnich might attach to the grain in its uan- preparedotate, even when subtct to mouldiness or mildew. He was proceeding tD read the ingredients of whici it is composed, wheo .The LoaI) CHIEF JustiCon thought it right to warn nor. Hunt, that if he continued to read that document- in support of the rye, he would givec the other side a right to read any documents they mnight Nh.hve in condemination of it, without being entitled to reply upon them.t Af,Ii SCAILLZTT said, that, to show M1r. Hunt that he was not unwilling to make peace with hini, hie was willing to withdrAw a juror to01i thaeioloineontditin :-Supose thaat he (Mir. Scarlett) were to ay hafis lfets,idaot intena to support their assertion that * th ry wa poionos-tat tey ereto admnit that they had acted umucera isflte pon hatpoin, w ic is own knowledge taught himtha thy led one..tartey id o itenionof injuring Mr. Mr. Hunt.-Not a very cheap advertisement. Mlr. SCAnLkT T.-I say, if he will take that, we are ready to say' tha th prpm'e4 ye s nt apoionos mixiture, anid that we copied thepargrah i qteSini frm loter paper, having no intention Mr. Hnt..I hae ben pa to reat expense iin bringing this acton,andI pt i'tothecanourofthe learnedI gentlemain, whe. tbey mere sayiLng that pepared rye Is, not a lD1SsOWUoS mixtnre, I's a sufficient apofisgy for thte formerpart of the libel ? Alr. S6A =TT..-.As to thle formner part of thisl-ibel, I- say not'hing_about it.. AMr. Huswit thenl continkued...Ife was ankiouKto maintainr his 6a_- Yactet~, both as a publif-man alfcl a peivaio individtual ; andt, with such. anxiety on his mind, hec could not corsent to the proposal of the learned gentlmens,. especially after.the (lark allusion yiMicliwas made in the libel to sore secret off'ences of which he was said to, have been guilt7. Indeed, h,e misat be permitted to Bay, that so atrot cious a libel could not have been written-withsout rome motive, having its folundation in the succeSs Of hill trade in the town aiidneiglhbourhood of Stamford. In that town he had several agents, in thecotuttylta whieh it was situate he baLd 3M.r 40. One of themn aiv Mr.Drakard, the edilor o'the tnfr Arejs, the rival newspaper to, thle Doston: Oaaette. Intoels 8iots thlat gentleman hAd.sold 'for hiul irn that 'toltn.- alone, 25,0001b. of prepared edrn ; aind perhaps it might be that -the defendantsenvied hini tht '-ucess of Mr. Drakard's exertions- What- ever had beehsthe motive of their attaecluponhiii man,ufacture, he be-. lieved that had it been required, he could have proved that It haddone' him special dam:age andt yet he was now desired to be contenit with a proposition of withdrawinjg at juror I Hie haa incurredA njoreb thins,- 1001. expense in bringibg this actif and he therefore trusted that' he shourld not be peuIce i It~ nds of the jury for I,dst refusal of Air. Scarlett's propsition. If any reasonable propositio'n were~ mnade to Min, hie would not decline if; bat hie could not rest satlified with Alir. Scarlett'.4 declaration that thie libel all originated from mis- take, especially atfter it was staid that lie hiad made, by thisi roasted corn, afortun3eout ofthesssfleringsofthepoor. flemnutttellthejutry that, where he old one ton to thepoor hesold onechundred to the rich. fle wouldaprovetsothem that RoyaleIy'isl asentforit-t-.hat the nobility wiere In the hablts of tusing ii, and that medical men admitted the benegIkal qualities of it. Could'he, then, accept such a proposit:oti aLs Mdr. Scarlett hiad offered ? The learned counsel had told thiem that he hiad ffound out a ehecap advertisement for hiis corn. A chieap ad-; verbtirement indeed I Why, forbhalf the money he could have adver- thied it in ev-erv paper in England. H ol o,-rt i od hifa permission proceed to read the remainder of the dertificate bfrebegun. ?I'lc Lst~CItEF USTTCE....OR ca do as you plae lr. Hunt;but fterthe dMission which has been mad , lalold thiink that t canot beeca Iay Iwamn yotu thatby reading it, you give the ochr sde riht o rad thter documentst In reply to it. Mr. unt xprssedhisreadiness to accede to his Lordshiip's aug.. gesten;andthe prceeed to that pa's of the libel which charged him ithselinga ceaparticle at a dear price--an inrEinuation, whc e saidwsfle The jury must be awave, that in ali low priced article tectofhe maniufacture was the chief expense. II was stated,ththha been compelledl by competition to sell for 4th. a pound,whteha originally sold for a shilling a pound(. This was untrUe-. Hirpred ryebhad never been sold for 4d]. a pound from the day eis nee into the trade, down to. tlse presernt. 'li rp wanot more tha he was entitled to demand, consirlering that isi rent and -t.-xes amounted to 1,2001., and thiat lie must sell mnany pounds of it to clear tiet sum. Several of his customners had told him, that they coutld buty rye at fid., and 4d. per lb. ; but he had replied to them, "1True it is that you can, I can snyself give yout rye at Od. a-.pound, 'but then, it is not rye whiclh has undergone mly expensive and beneficial process." Indeed, his proces was so IOPex=nie that lhad he sold the prepaired rye at that price, lie muse logsnehaive figured in thie Garzette. He now submitted to them, as men of the world, and as men of busines, whether lie had not made out a case upon which he was entitled to recover damage against the defendants. He knew none of them personally,s but he asked them whether theyv would allow a man to be vilified reviled, insulted, and beat down in the mannier in which It was at- temnpted to beat him down in this false and maliciousalibel? Was it not calculated.-.nay, was it not intended, to ruin him in his trade ? He called upon them to protect hie fortune, which was embarked in it, by their verdict from the malignant ettaek which had been made on it. The Government had conisiderecl his invention of this bever- age a benefi to the country; for, though he had been convicted in a penalty of 2001. for selling this prepared corn, anid though he had paid it into the Treasury, an order was afterwards issued that the money go. paid shoul.d be refunded to hinm. Such an occurrence had never bean hieani of before in the department where it took place. WVhen lie called at the Treasury to receive the money for which, he had obtaLined a warrant, the language used to kim was, "Wait a day or two till we manke inquirses as to the account to which this money is to be set down. Never, since the datys of Walpd,oe have we received such an order. Remis- sions of penztltics to a large amount are niot unknown to us, but ive never yet heard of such a thing as restoring to the subject money which has once been extracted from hizs pocket." He had no ob- jection to give the Government credit for a few days, and the result was, that at the end of that timne lie recived his 2001. back again fromi the Governynent, from no other reason that he could discover buit their convictinn that the article aiforded a wlbolesome and bene- ficial beverage. 11Ir. Hunt then recapitulated the various points of his speech, Andl calild upon the jury to give him such damiages as anv one of them would expect at his hands, ir he (Mlr. Hunt) were a Juror, and the juror had to complain ef such an injurious libel as he (Mr. Hunt) had that day been obliged to bring before their notice. Alr. Motore prodluced the necessarv documents from the Stamp.. oflice, torove that the printers, pr'oprietors, and publishers of the ..St~IO4 Gect nd .in.fiutuahire Advertiser were the defendants, Messars. Newcomlb and Brook, and that it wast Dublishea at Stamford. Mr. AMallison produced from the Stamp-offilce the o-Bsion Gazette and iAncolatshire Advertisecr of the 27th of April last, which con- tained the libel in question. EdwardI Carter, Esq., examined by iMr. Hunt.-I was at thie Hampshire meeting, in April last2, which was called for the repeul of the assessed taxes; I saw you there ; I conceive that you are the person alluded to in thelibel as Orator Hunt. I have nodoiubt ofit in my own mrind. The Reporter of The Times, who reported the proceedings of that~ meeting, was theis examined by Mlr. Hunt, and deposed as follows:- I attended at the last Hampshire meeting. I was the only reporter froni London present; I have heard the libel read, and I have no doubt that you are the person whio is meantt by Mlr. Orator H unt. Cross-examined iy Alr. SCARLETT.-! published a report -of the proceedings. I tool, down tliespetches of all the difrerent orators besides tlose of Mlr. H-unt. I also took down the resolutions of the meeting; at least, I believe so. ThomHas Hunt examinied by Alr. l{unt.-I have known the paintiLf as a householder at Mliddleton-cottage, niear Andover, in ~ampsh~irc, Por nearly 12 years. I have paid tbe taxes for him frequently. I know that thle plaintiff is a dealer in roaste-d corn in Christchurch, Surrey. Cross-examined by Mlr. SCA7tLETrT.-.I know the average weight of a'quarterof corn: it is abeut 3 cwt. Re-txamined._ hTtere are 13 bushels in a quarter, and a bushel weighis about fl01b. A bushel of corn makat about 351b. or 361b. of the best prepared roastedi corn. There is a considerable diniinution in the weight made by the roasting. It loses abouit a third. The process of roasting is expensive. Mlr. Hunt, to the Lord Chief'Justice....I've a little host of medi- cal men here-amn I to he allowed to call them, my Lord? The LoRn CHIEF JUSTICE.-I do not see any occasion there is for so doing, Mlr. hunt. It is admitted that the roasted corn is not noxious ; and even if it were so, it could not be proved under this plea. Mlr. fiCARLETT.-I do not mean, mny Lord, to retract what I haye already said-that the prepared rye is niot noxious ; but I must declare that we had medical authority for stating that it wasso. The libel, which we have iaiserted in Alr. Hiunt's specech, was tlen pist ir' and read, and by Air. SCARLETT's desire, certain para- graphs following it, asserting that the repial of the asse-ssed taxes was9 better calculated to relieve the lower orders of the c:ommunity than the repeal of thie taxes proposed by Mlr. Hunt. Mr. Hunt.-This is my ease, my-Lord. Mlr. SCARLETT commenced histpeech fear the defendants by re. marking on the extraordlinary-Length of Mr. Hlunt's speechs, who had kept them in the box for 6wo hours, on a case which might have been decided in much less timne. Not that hie blamed Air. Hlunt for the long address he had made to themn; for every suitor had a righit to conduct his cause in the manner which he conceived to be most advantageous to his own intetests;- but he trusted that he (Mr.5car-. lett) should be able to convince theminmuch lcss time that their ver- dict muetbe for the defendan.ts, or, if not.for the defendants, n-.sst be a verdict for the plaintiff wvithi the smallest possible damages. Mr. Hunt had told them that he had not the affectation to pretend that he was unknown to them ; he had admitted that he was knowi -to them by the very appellation that was used iii the article complained of; he ad eveni allowed that it had been his misfortune to appear so often on the floor of that Court, thatiscarcely a niian in the country hut knew who be was. Hle so far agreed with Air. Hunt upon theo topic of.his notoricty,to be ready to confeBs that no mran had ever occu- pied so mnuch of the attntion of the public press, or had so much en- joyed the figure he had made in it, as Mlr. Hunt. lie has livea InI public Meetings, lie has flourishedI in newspapers, he has been pointed at in the streets-inay, he has hiad his name scratched ose the walls as the proprietor of the Afatchless Blacksnig, so that all who run down to Westminster miay read, to such a dea. gree,,that if' ever there was one man more notoDrious than another5i it is fr. Hunt. Now, he was quite sure that' a. man who took a partI in every public meeting and mue6iJtb prepared to meet the ca)nsequences of his notoriety in the cens ires of the public press, or musE be - deficient in both courage and manlinesss. INOW, ini the article 'that was now complainedl of as libelloes, he could find nothing of which Mr. Hunt, as a friend to liberal prin- ciples and 'free discussions, had a right to complain. Ft di- virled itself into two parts, one relating to the public, anid the other to the private character of' Alr. Hunt. He would apply him- self to both parts in turn, butwvould firsrtrenmark on an extraordiinary privilege which Mlr. Hunt possessed, and which no c4ne elsa had ever enjoyed.Whenever he came before thie Court,he indulgedl himself in a relation of all his motions and secret operations. What other mnan wauld have given them such a reasoni as Mlr. Hunt had given for hlis being five minuates too late in cou-rt. He had been troubled with adisin- clination to move! Indeed ! a-nd whet had the Court to do with that or any other of Alr. Husnt's private motions ? Withi regard to the first part of the libel.namely, " that the prceig fthle meeting might want no testimiony to their propety,Mr.Orator Hfunt attended to thtwart its proceedings, andlto viify and traduce all who attended it,"_.he contended that it wasa ode of argumnent which had been so long in use as to have become almiost legitiunate. He recollectedI the time when to say that a measuire was advocated by Mtr. Fox, was* a sufficient reason -for rmany eol to- nem t adt sytati a IS4cVUUvtCU Dv ruir. ritt, wFaR a gufficien' reason f-or' th_e'm' t'oe- ~laud it. SO it Awas with the Hunsie an h ni-ute hosewhodifere frm M. Hnt considered his aPprobation to be asufficient reason for their disapprobation; and he had yet tio leasn that the declaration of such an opinion, objectionable as it was in point of argument, was at all objectionable in. point of law. He maintained tihat the observations which had been made on MIr. Hunt's conduct at the Hampshire moeeting were couched in the language of fair, discussion, and that lr. HIunt's well.known conduct at public meetuigs, in advocating the cause of itle populace against the gentry, was a sufficient ground for the defendants' sup. posing that he had attended that particular meeting with the in- tention of thwarting its proceedings. He did not think that Mr. Hunt corqplained ofthis paragraphs merely because itsaid that he was "distinguished by his impudence," and thar " his strength of fore- head transcends our powers of calealation." Indeed, Ar. Hunt had not pretended to have any eharacter for modesty, and hbthought that he would not find fault with the latter phrase, when he heard him (-Mr. Scarlett) acknow7ledge that the strength of forehead of eome IA%iyers_himself amnong the number-did transcend all calcu- latioDn. indeed, he shouldhave thought that this latter phrasewould be peculiarly desirable to AM1r. Hunt; for unless he had had strength of forehead to face armies without fear, he would never have de- served the fame which lie has now acquired. The learned counsel, after showing that the editor's remarks, in condemnation of Air. Hunt's scheme for repealing the taxes on soap, leather, and candlles rather than the assessed taxes, were perfectly consistent with-sounri logic and fair arguument, turned hit attention to that part of the al- leged libel whlch was charged as affccting the privute character of the plAintilE )Jere he mnust observe, that if lMlr. Hunt's object was to- get ani advertisertent of hig'risQfecorn.rncefAl ilIOtlewvialteri, he hpd cer4tinly efrected iti. in a ihost'ingenfosu. n14anPtr.- There was not anewaspaper in London-that wouil -ot.pladlislh hisspeech;un,d JO-lifirrow it would go forth to, the wvorld , clp o ~ythe Hing, bur tile Roval Famlily, the Bishops-, the .Jaugcs,.the Houste of Isords5 and. the I-Rlouse of Cormiaons, onb.a-idaldl -drank- liad approvedl of-Mlr. Huint's prepared ry& Mlr. UtinitA&idd bkthavcJ~ot an' Wspjt :to have inserted such a pmxff' for.$ir, eithiar fod ,ialf a gums.a orai guihea -but n6w4 by this ingeniu 44eiie, hie, be got -th'emn torin.. which Mlr. Itint,peared to haie''eObiied :of' hfvVists -irportanrei ~'lEverv body4'adh,"edinteie pprthtws ovce In a penalty ot'2001. ter selling- roasted corn, arid sp~I wia s,nured ins mry trade buht niobo'dy eVerlheard of tecofalme;wVhiieh'e galizedl tile sale of 14!- or the debates which ensued, in consequence Of iLt." So that, according -to 'Air; flurij lhe waA ever) thing, and Pathuiusett wVas, ziotifng, in the .gyes .of the p'Vdplij of. ~ngfand Bilt Mlr. Hunt waSbiot consistent inbiilidenisf his own ainperftanee, if the eyesi of all England were thts-fixed upoWnhitni irow cerrie irl-o .Pas that they last sight of airn whilst this' btl was, a assing .a bill whichi was brouglht in in 1oisequciare Of 4petittlo he, hrimself pre Senlted, and in conne4uenceof the deeIaratiqns of ;hio3frends to the Chancellor of the Pxchequer,of thchardship.ofapp lynga ilaw which was intended only for sipurioxs'coil'ee, to an urticle th at did n t ~re. tend to be -coffee at adll? As Mr. Hunt had complinmented bim Air. Scarlett)yupoa hi geo%t looks, he could not hielt returnizig-the comn.' p.liment to Mlr. Hunt. Inideed, he wav very- ha~ipy to see hiipi look so well. and he supposedi that it was attributable to his drink. ing his own beverage. Hfis (Mr. Scarlett's) good looks could not be attributed to such a cause : he had never drank any of~it for Mlr. Hlunt when he was sending about his half poundeofcorn to isiembers of the Hlouse Wo Commions had forgotten to send any to. him', and] he (M1r. ScArleti) was nor quite sure that if it had been sent he should have taken. it at that time from Alr. Hunt, not that he susoected that Air. Hunit would ever have sent hjim poison. (A laugh.) The leaimed gentlemian then defended at somie length thiat- Part Of theo libet whiicb sitid that Mr. atunt was ralking- a profit of 8200 pt cent. by hiis prepared rye, atid saiid thAt updn hlis own show. ing it appeared that day that he mnade 7001. per cent. b-y it: tar a qurte fre ony cost 40s., and it was converted into 288 pounds of ,retared corn,whicli,at Is.per lb., amnounted to 14lwS' Ile then came tos Inc last paragraph of the libel, which was said to charge Alr. ~Hut,'t with selling! a poisionouli material to his- Ua,esty's subjects: ifI they believed it to be the intent' of the defendants to m2ke Such a chlarge against. Mr. Hunt, ho adtiiitted that he had no dcfence. But they could not fad to observe~ that -the opinion on which this chiarge was founded wag not that of the defendants, but of Dr. Buclian, the editor of the Cottage Physicfen; Aind it mnerelv went to this-that if Mr. Hunt sold rye, be sold ant article which;,when taken in a certain, dose, contains poison. Now, if that were a libel on Mlr. IHunt. it would be a libel onany apothecary ho say that he. had lns anIi shiop, which, if taken in ce-rtair proportions', would create deatri'hi- position too absurd tA eavne o a momeat. Btsidesit was niot said that Ali. Huant sold this rye, knowv. hug2tati was poisonious; and withodt some averment that he sold that whiceh he knew to be poisonous, the words comPlaiwned of could not be construed into v. libel, Besides, tere was no special damages laid in the declaration; and an opinion thus nakedly'expressed of the deleterious.effects of rye couldt not form the suxbject of an actioni withouit them.~ Instead of proving special damages, SIr. hiunt qaid, in his own declaration, that he had deservedly obtained the gopd opinion of all its neigh. bouirs, and other good and worthy subjects -af this realm, and had acquired, and 'was daily and hionestly acquiring, great gains and riches, in his trade of a manufacturer of roasted corn. In- stead of shiowing that the corn wa&s eaten by 'nobody, he had shiown that is was e-aten by Kings, DukeR, Lords, Bishops, Judges, anid all classes and degrees of commoners. Under these circumstances, he thouight that M.'r Hunt would not retire dissatisfied fromn Court, even if a verdict were recorded ag-ainst himn; for he had got admission ihat the prepared rye was not noxious-that the artiele of which hecoinplined was not dictated by malice but copied from another par-er ; and that the meritsi of his ceaste(i corn would appear in full display to-morrow miorning, in every~ paper of the metropolis. A r. Hunt interrupted Mr. Scarlett, to obsierve that he neither knew nor believed the paragraph to be copied from another paper. Mr. SCARL.ETT repliedt.that this was because he had not had time to read the St. Jamee's Chr-onicle or The Times, in which he believed it hadl first appeared. The learned, gentleman then con- cluded a very able speech. of which we have given a very imper- fect abstract, by calling on the jury to return a verdict for his client. The LostD CHSIEF JUSTICE summe-d up the evidence with great impartiality. The Jury, after a few minutes' deliberation, returned a verdict for As aon s te vrdit ws anouced Alr. Hunt took. a pound of oased or frm hs pckt, nd reented it to Mr. Scarlett. Theleanedgenlemn rceied t vrygraciously, and placed it by thesid ofhisbrif'. Te pesetatoncompletely upset the gravity of te Curt whih ws cnvuled ithlaughter for some minutes. THrE APOTHECARIES' COMPANY V. BENTLEY. This was an action An 65 Georgel11l to recover penalties against the defendant for practising as an apotlecary without a certificate from the Company of having passed an examination, and not hav- ing beeni in practice on or before lst of August, 1815. Mr. SCAP-LErTY stated, that this action was brought bv the Apo. thecaries' Comipany to enforce a very wholesome law. The statute on whlich it was founded was; passed to protcct the public health against the malpractice of ignorant -sersons who mnighit impose on the tin wary, and made every man liable to a penalty of 1201. who practised without a CertifiCate of qualification, unless he should be in the practice on the Ist of August, 1815, when the act began to operate. There woNld beno doubt that the defendant had practised; andI therefore thie only question would be, whether he was withins the exception which, by the case of "1 The Apothecaries' Comnpany v. Roby," was held tube restricted to personzactually in practice "i the 1st of August, 1815, and to extend to persons whomight have acted be- fore that period, but had ceased to atct as apothiecaries. Now he would show that the defendant was not very likely so to have practised- that he had been aPPrenticed to the trade of a whitesmith, had be-. cone a hardwareman and travelling auctioneer, and had been mnade banikrupt beorie started as a surgeon in George-street, Hamp. stea-roa. Ofhis literary qualifications the jury, would be enabled to judge from a letter which he had written- to the solicitor of the Company on she aubjer,t of the present action. In this letter, he spelled practice, prac/is; weight, weigktla; profoessionr, profkicie; most, Inonet and perlhaps, praps. [ The learned counsel read the letter, pointing out these and other peculiarities in the Spelling.] The jvr would recollect, thjat it was not mixing a draught, or com- pouning a bous, wlitich mande a man an apothecary, but the main- tenance of an establishmnent, and the ability andI opportunity of making up the pres4criptions of physicians. UJnless the defendant could prove such a practising as thits, the plalintiffit would be entitled to recover, and would only ask for a single penalty. Susanria Alale, wife of William Male, living in Pnrk-street, Re- gent's I'alri, said, she becamec acquainted withl MVr. Bentley in 1822, when he ied atNo. 4, George-street, Hamnpitead-road, and pro. duced one of his cards. The card expressed that AMr. Bentley, sur- geon and accoucheur, would be at home till nine o'clock every morn- iRg. He had ashop, fitted up with shelves and drriwers. Being ill about the autumn she and her sister-in-law applied to hint for me- dlical advice; lie Ielt her putlse, and told her she had an inward comn- plaint, and a decline coming on, but he would send some mnedicine, from which she wouldI find benefit. Ne Pent some pills and medi- cine in a gallipot, whiclh wer-e taken. She found herself no better, and went to him : hie said, " Youi must not expect to get better di- rectly, because it is an inward complaint." She) and her sister c-on- tinuedI otl and on to sake medicine. till Christmnas, when shbe grew much worse. Once she proposed a physician, to which Mir. Bentley objected. Once he gave powders, to op crtea emti and direct- ed them to he taken every' three hours,hwvrvoetyte mgt operAte ; she took one; it operatdsovletyththebived if slite had taken another, the should havedd.Atras she had a s;Welling in her head, and took morermedfic~ines. Her siater took me. dlicinies till A pril, 1823, when she died. The witness left off Mfr. BentLey's pills, was cupped by another surgeon, and got. better. She atterwairds received a bill, which had not beeni paid, and -took it to Apothecaries' HaMl On crosm.examnitation, the witness said she had mentioned t he defendant's name to others who had employed him. W'illiam Mlale, the huisband of the last witness, proved that Mlr. Bentley attended hinti when ill, anid utipplied him with medicines. He also showed witness a bookt, from which it appearedi he had also followed the bastne6s of an atuctioneer in 1820 all round the country, ariiI had been in partnership with Mlr. Davisl. Thiomas George, fromi Park.-street, said he met Mr. Bentley at a Me thodist Society in 182, when he gave him one of his bills. In consequence he wvent to Bentley's house, and he gave him powders, which he was to take every six hours, for a pain in. the side-. but he did not recover. One of hiis eyes was weaik; Beretley put powder in it; and he had grown worse and worso ever since, Air. Bentley said he camie from Derby, and had practised there before be came to settle Inliondon. He camneto town about nine years8ago. OCross-exsmined..-.The imedicinies were put into Mlr. M5ale's bill, who was the witness's son-in-law. Re-examined....He said he-had practised on the witnese's wife, whichl was not true. John H-all, of B.street,. -Haniustelid.ro2d, provedl tTiat Air, 13entley attended al child of his in- the latter end of 1822 and be#hinnng of 1803, but the child grew no better. He sent a bill of Ii. 16g. 3d., which was p'aid WHIliam Crow said Mlr. B'elntley attended hima, and endeavoured to Persuade him he was very ill, and ini a galloping consumption; his brothier would go off in a gradual consumption. He sent pills, andi the witnless founid hlimself worse ; when Mlr. Bentley said, " That is wbiat I want to convince you of." (A laugh.) H-e left off the pills, and applied to another surgeon. Two othier witnesses proved that the defendant attended them when residing ini George-sitreet, Harmpstead-road. AMr. SCARLETT now pr.-pOaed to trace the defendant's hirtory. DIr. WVood produced a commission of bankrnupt, dated the 17th of November, 1821, against the defendant, as hardwareman, dealer, and chapnian, and said the bankrupt told himn he was then practising as cutter of corns. The examination pro-fed that the d.efendant had been trading as a hardwareman for five years before June, 1822. Stephen Davenport said, in 1805 he was at Derby, when Bentley wae apprenticed to Strutt and Co. as a whitesmith. EIe might then be about1o. In 1817 the witness found him living in the neigh. bourhood of Afiorfields, making, up parcels of hardware, as if for sale. This year he went to see hima in George-strect, where he was Practising as an apothecary and surgeon. He showed a book to ex- nibit his practice. M1r. Edward Fox proved, that in 1811 the defendant worked as a whitesmith at his mill, and continued to work there in 1812. Mlr. Roberts proved that Bentley was employed from 184 for seven years and a few months by. Messrs. Strutt, first as an appren- tice, and then as a journeyman. -h - anI Mlr. Robert WVard, of Derby, proved thatr Bentley-was in the employ of Warner and Co., at their Yuill, from Aichaelmas, 1814, to Alichaelmas, 1815. He saw him balf,-a dozen times a day, and did not know him to carry on any other business. He came to vwork at six in the morning, and remained till seven or eight in the evening. Air. Bowden, a stove-manufacturer, proved, thet Bentley came to work as a smith, in November, 1815, and worked for his father till October, 1817. Alr. Osbome, a bookbinder, recollectea Mr. Bentley working as a smith for Mr. Uowden, in 1816. Reafterwardsmade oat eatalogues to sell by auction, and dealt inbhatdware. The letter opened by Mr. SCARLTTT w;as then rpad by Ilr. An- SsoTT, who, at the desire of the learned counsel, mirked the pecu- irities of the spelling, much to the ainusenent of the audienee. Thi6 was thbe ease for the plaintiffs. Mr. BItOUauAMa submitted, that the plaintifhs. were bound to pTove the alleg ation in their declaration, that the tlefeundant had not obtained a cec.iflate from the Company. He took the distlnetion to be this-.that where an exception was created by a distinct clause, the btrden of shp.wing that he was within it lay Qn the defendant; but when it was.iniodtiiced to qualifyr the- penal enactment in its very bod, th6neAdtve must be both 6tated snd proved.. I1r. SCARtLETT admitted that 'thie negative 'must be stated, but denied that it must-be proved;sand instanced as exactly in point the cAsC of convictions againstunqrallfied persons for sporting, in which 'every.ppkstble quali0cation -musrt be negatived; and in which the Ptrd-oF qtjiifi adion was r.evdttheless wholly Cart on the defendant. The.Ldgti Ornr' rF.UsYTTcheld'that the plaintiff could not be reoitIred to p'rove-a negative; butgave leave te the counsel for the detenclailt to movei, ifthey.should think lie was In crror. ' ' ' ' 'Mr.'Buossraai then %zidressed the jury. Re reminded them. that cy. -were not to try- whethei the defendant was a mall of good education_not even-whbether he was clualifled to practise as an a thecary; but whethe, in point of fict, he did so practise on or fore the Ist of August, 1815. Some merriment had been created by the exhibition of his errors in spelling and style; but a man rnight be an excelleat compounder of medicines, though an indifrerLnt com. poser ef sentelices.. Lord -Chatham himself wrote letters, spelling Woes "dos A" and ilie great Duke of Marlborough, who was as expe- driedc and as- expert in the art 'of killing as any of the Apothoe- caries' Cohrpany, spelled in a way which he might def) anv of the Apothecaries' ComiPany to rival. (Great laughter.) Now he would ptoife thatthetdefendantdidpractise as an apothecary for years beIore A ugust, 1815, (and the language of the record was "on or before,") and that therefore he was on this record entitled ta a verdicLt. The jury would not regret such a result when they considered that this act, thbugh well intended,was most severe that it created and perpetuated a moitopoly- and that the old commorn law of the country was sufficient to protect the public, not only without the Apothecaries' Company, but agea^ut them, by the right of action which it gave to every man who had sufMted from impro. per treatment by a person pretending to skilL Wm. llaydon said, in 1311, he lived at Derby, where he married and had three children. ' Ij" said the witness. 4" was ill-Mr. Bentley gave me physic, which I swear before the Almighty God did Ine good." He attended my firsr-botn and gave him medicines. (A laugh.) He worked at Alessrs. Strutt's, bati he wYaS continuallv 1dabbliDg in medicines; he kept a little drawer unctet his desk, and mixed up little things. (Laughter.) John Bentley, the defendant's brother, raid he lived with hitrifrom 1811 till X8l4, at Derby. He was with hicn as assistant in the sur- gery. The defendant had a aurgery in his house with every thing necessary to the tade. There were jars, bottles, a pestle and mor- tar, weights and scales, and other requisites. He freqaently carried out mnedicines to patients, and patients camne to the slhop. The de- fendant was educated unider a suemeon at Whitchurch, in Shrop- shire, and afterwards with rjr. Fowler, at Derby. When he lived opposite WVerburgh's church, there was a sign over the docr "Sur- geon Bentley." On cross-examination, the witness said he vas 44 years of age, .He was an operator an the feet by profession,and had becn so for nine ye-Irs. The defendant vas about 40 years of age. The witness was .ducated at Derby, under a pergon named Wood, a kind of a dentist (a laugh), an: also an operator on thef feet. He w-as nearly a year with Vr. Wood, but practice lhad made him perfect. Before that he was a frame-workmknitter at Derby. His brother was appren- ticed to Air. Bickerton, at Whitchurch. He could not say how old the defendant was then, or when he was with Dr. Fowler * he could live no particular dates. 'Thedefendant leftStrutt's in 1810 or 1811. e went to Dr. Fowler's before he went to Strut's. William Hadley said he supplied the defendant with drugs at Derbv, and thought there was a description of him over the door. He used to act as an apothecary for about threc years. Cross-examined.t'tMr. Bentley scent for drugs, and sent the money; sometimes 4d. or 2d. - sometimes as much as .5s. John Dolnan said,he knewMr. Bentley atDerby, andthathe was in the habit of making up rnedidnes. There was a siga on his door. M'dr. SCARLETT shortly replied. The Ionti CHrrEr Jws ricE left the jury to say whether, on this evidence, it was made out to their satisfaction that the defendant was ractising asan apothecary in Augus, 1815 ; not merely whether le Ihad occasionally mixed medicine and administered pills, but whe- ther he acted as an apothecary, keening a shop, and making up the prescriptions of physicians. The Jury almost imtnediateey returned a verdict for thc plaintiffis on the last counmt, for a single penalty of 201. COURT OF KING'S BENCH. FninAY. Dre. 17. IHUNT V. NEWVCO1tZ AKn 0rUVPO-