Court Of King's Bench, We...
..-. LAW REP01W2. ,,- ioms was an mntictnlentagainst the-rector of-thelrish of Sutton, in Bed fordshire, for violenitly assasultinga poor woman named hitthi IMackenzie, while she was quick ivith ch1Idv by reaoin *hereot- the child died. On a- former day, Air. Storks, on thepart of thedde. fendant, obtained a rule to showeause whTa aug cstlon should-not be entered on the toll, that ia-impartia1trial ccul riot l'e-had in the county of Bedford, andi therefore that tne venue should hi changed to the adjoining county of Buekiag'ham. This nile was supported by an aflidavit of the defendant, that great prejudice,and ill-will existed against him in his parish-that to prevent scantailfrom at. taching itaelf to his profession, he had consentedi to tgive ten guineas to the prosecutrix, 1to cxpressed.herself satisfied; abtzthst thecase thus droppedhad been taken txp i hostile spirit by a neighbour- ing gentleman of great influence and wealth. llr. Bnous}reatr now showed cause against; the rttle. It was truethat a very unfavourable opinion of the reverend defendant prevailed, in his own parish; but he had no one to -blante for'it but himself. His conduct had been so inconsistent with the duties of his effice, that his churchwardens had lnterposed, and three ti'ns complaints bad-been preferred to the Bishop against him. It was true that the prosecatrix, being very poor, and having incurred a debt to her attorney of 171., in her attempt to obtain justice, did consent to take ten guineas and the costs by way of compromise. Dr. Free, however, did notpay the costs; and Mr. Mantague Burgoyne, the gentleman to wkhm he had alluied, took iup the case, from no private motive, but from a conviction thatthe arrangementwis a con. trivancebetween the attarneyandtheclerg inantodeeatj,ustic- Mr. Burgoyne, who was a gentleman of the highestrespectabuity andpos- sessed of considerable estates in Essex and in Surrey, as well as in Bedfordshire, now deposed, that he was inducedto interfere by thesp motives alone; he showed that the conduct of -the defendant was so incontinent and immoral, that it excited the strong disapprobation of his parishioners; and to this and no other cause was to be attri- butcd that odium of which he complained. The LonD CHIEF JUSTICE.-StIrely there is enough on Mr. Burgoyne's own affidavit without castingt any reflection on him, to show that this trial should be had in another county. Mr. BILOUIIAM..-Aly Lord, the odium excited against this de. fendant extends only to a very small part of the county, and it has aU arisen from his own fault. The Loan CHIEF -JUSTICE.-Take it so's Suppose it has arisen from his own fault; still he ought to have a fair trial on this specific charge. Mr. BRoUusGs .-_Then the worse a man's character is, and the more notorious his guilt, the stronger claim he has to a privilege which may amount to absolute impanity. The LoRn CEIIEE JUSTICE.-NO1.nO; that.does not follow. Mir. BsROUGNAAL.-The prosecutrix here is a iioor woman, who swears she is unable to take witnesses towa distance, and must, how. ever reluctantly, drop the prosecution if tljis rnuebe iiide absolute. Mr. STOxKs.-MSr. Burgoyne will, no doubt, paysalteexpenses; this is his prosecution. AMr. Justice BAYLEY suggested that Huntingdon would- bestearer than Aylesbury; and accordingly, after some further contersation the Court directed the venue to be changed to the county of Huntlngdon. AMr. MIontague Btirgoyne sat 'In the students' box during this dis. cussion. IN TISE MtATTER OF THOMSAS FINCS. The Grand Jury of Middlesex came into court, and delivered a paper to the officer, in which they caUed'the atteition of the Judges to the case of Thonmas Finch, the keeper of the workhouse at Ham. mersmlthi, forusing insufficient weights and measures, and expressed a hope that they would adept some means to protect the poor indi- viduals liable to such imposition. DIr. Justice BAYLEY said, the Courtcould not prejudge the ques- tion of this person's guilt or innocence; but if no one stood forward to prosecute, they would order the papers to be laid before the Attor- ney-General, who would act on thern. IThe jury then, having brought in all their presentments, were discharged. THE XING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE BlSSOP OF EXETER, V. PAVEY AND RO WLAD. This was a criminal infornation, obtained on behalfof the Bishop of Exeter. against the printer and proprietor of the newspaper cadled the ReaiIfohu Bnll, for a libel reflecting on kis character. The ar- tide substantially imputed to the Bihhop, that he had prosecuted a clergyman in his diocess with great severity,and had interfered to in- rrease his sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court, for an immorality which was comparativelyvenial in him as a bachelor, while the Bishop himself openly paraded with a courtesan,by whom lie haa been insti- gated to these mea3ures.This calumny was also associated with general insinuations against the clergy. The defendants suffered judgment to go by default, and now appeared to receive sentence. On the part of the prosecution, no affidavit was nowr put in, but the affidavit of the Bishop on which the rule was obtained was read. Af'ter setting forth the libel, it entered at great length, and with great minuteness, into the circumstances to which Iturobably alluded. It stated that applications were made to the Blshoi by the parishioners of the Rev. leter Perriag, rector of North Hijish, in l)evons'nire, requesting his interposition to procure the residence ofthe clergyman on his benefice; and that after making roper inquiries, he took steps to enforce it. After this, he received a letter from a person signmne her name Isabella Blackburn, complaining of some miscon. duct of this clergyman, but of which he tok no notice. After thig, the woman called at his palace but as soon as sbe began to tell her business, which-related to Air. erring, he refused to listen to her, and ordered -her immediately to leave his house. At a subsequent period, he received a long letter from this person, giving an account of a connexion with AIr. Perring, and complaining that he had left her in a state of extreme distress. Upon this, he thoaght It right to inquire; and having reason to believe that the char-e was in a great measure true, directed proceedings to be instituted in the ecclesiasti- cal court of the diocess. Before this, he received a letter from Mlr. Perring, alleging that he had been inveigled and defrauded of large sums of money by this woman, to which he returned a dignified answer. The case was fairly heard, the Bishop taking no part in the deliberations, anti lr. Perring was sentericed to be suspended for tbree yeats. To this trnseactioji h's Lordsbip ipmputed the at- tack made upon him, which was wholly false and groundless. On the part of the defendants, two affidavits were read. Pavey, the printer, deposed that he never saw the libel, wbich was com- posed by others, ana that he received a stipend of only l6s weekly for lis services. -Rowland, the proprietor, deposed, that he never saw the libel til long after it appearance; that it was inserted by the editor, who had left his situation, and whom he had since sought for in vain; that he had made every possible exertion to discover the author, and had deposited the original with the solicitor of the Bishop; that after the rule was granted, he inserted in the paper a full acknowledgment of the falsehood of the scandal, and an expres- sion of great regret for having published it; and that he had, before the motion, parted with all interest in the journal. MIr. F. PoLLoCK and Mr. BROUGIAM addressed the Court for the prosecution. If the calumny had been directed against the Bi- shop merely, he would probably have passed over it in silence; but as the proceedings ofa court, and the charkter of the clergy, had been attacked through him, he fe]thimself bound tovindicate them from suspicion. This object he bad fully obtained, and was anxious that the defendants should have the-benefit of every topic which could be urged in nitigation, especially as he vas satisfied that the contritioa they had expressed was sincere, and that the exertions they had made to discover the author were strenuous. He had per- formned hsis duty with reluctance, and he trusted the Court would discharge theirs with mercy. The Covessrows SERGEaNaT an.d Mr. ABRAHA M, for the defend- ants, admitted that there was no foundation for the libel, but urged the situation of the defendants, the regret they had expressed, the course they had taken in suffering judgment by default, the pecu- niary loss they had sustained, an the humane recommendation of the prosecutor, as grounds'for reducing the punishment which they were yet to suffer. The JUDGEs consulted for a few minutes, after which M1r. Justice BAYLEY passed sentence. Ss the defendants were not the authors of the libel, the Court did not visit them with pu- nishment for the malignity of its slander, but fbr the gross negli- gence of which they had been guilty in allowing it to appear under their sanction. The proprietor of a newspaper was bound to take care, before he eent It forth to the world, that it contained nothing calculated to destroy the claracter and wound the peace of others. In this case there was reason to suppose, that the party whu had held himself forth to the world as printer was not the real superintending printer, but one who inerely lent his name to give a colourable satisfaction to the requisitions of the statute. The Court, ad- verting to the circumstances of nitigation which their subsetsuent conduct prcsented did adjudg that Pavey shouldpay a fine ot 101., and give security or good behaviour for three yearx, himself in 1001., and two sureties in 501. eachb and that Rowland should pay a fine of 1001., give security for his good behaviour, himself in 2001., and two sureties in 1001. each. COURt OF KING'S ;BENCH WESTM7V6i _rrt THE SING V. TXE REW DR t -.