Court Of King's Bench, We...
The ATToRmEy-GExERAL, moved for a rule to show cause why a writ of vandamus should not issue, commanling the 31ayor and Steward of the borough and manor of Weet Loo, in Cornwall, to hold a court-leet for thc putpose or swearing certain resiantR as freemen. On former occasions, a power of sweating in strangers as freemen had been asserted, but it had been overthrown in a Com- mittee of the Honse of Commons: and there were now persons enti- tled to vote as residents, who had not been sworn. The COtUnT granted a rule to hbow cause. THSE KCING V. JAMES STAXP SUTTON COOKE. lMlr. TAUNTON mentioned this case, nhich stood over till to-day on an affidavit of the defendant's nurse, thalt he was too much indis- posed with the goat to appear and receive judgment. The Court had then suggested that the prosecutor's ageats might Inake inqtsi- ries in the interval as to the truth of the deposition ; but they lhad been unable to inquire with effect, fromn inability to discover the nlacc of the defendant's abode. It would, therefore, be righ if judgment was still to be postponed, that they should beinformneaof the derendant's residence, and pcrmitted to send a mnedical genle- mnan of eminence who might ascertain the ac:ual state of his health. AMr. CAMIPnELL said he htad now the moat satisfactory affidavits of the delendant's illness. The LoF D CnIEF JUSTwCE.-You cannot be injured, if your statements are true. The demnatnd is very reasonable, after all that has happened. THE KING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF THE MARQUIS OF 'IASTItNGS, V. THE SUNDAY TIMES. Air. SCAr-LETT moved for a rule, calling on tbe proprietor and printer of the Sunday Tires to show cause why a criminal infor- mation should not be exhibited against them, 10or a libel oa the Slar- quis of H;astings. Before he stated the paragraph itself, or the de. nial given to its insinuations he thotaght at right to detail the circum- stances which had occasioned a delay in tbe application; for the libel appeared so Ions ago, that he should decline applying to the Court, unleRs hc could sbow reason to except the case from the general rule. As soon as the artiele was published, the friends of Lord Hastings, who was absent from this country, took measures in order to move this Court for the prntection of iis character. They were5 however, advised, that the affidavit of the noble Mifarquis himselt vrould he necessarv to the success of the motion, and they immediately wrote tG hini to procure it. Di reply he sent an affidavit, ample m sub- stance, but sworn before an officer whoin thc Court could not re- cognize as having competent authority to take it. lVhen, therefore, the afidavit arrived, tse friends of lord Hastings found that thev c.suld not use it, and were obliged to send to his Lordship to rectify the error. Lord liastings then swore his affidavit befo}e the Chief Justice at Mlalta, who firled an office which the Court hadrecognized as givinz authority to administer such an oath. T rho OItD CHIEF JN STICE asked if the learned counsel had an affidavit of some person here that the signature was genuine, and that the party fiUed the oflice of Chief Justice. Mr. SCARLETT replied that he had, and proceeded to state, that the, affidavit of Lord Hastings did not arreive till after the end of Triuity term. Mr. Justice BAYLEY inquired the date of the publication comn- plained of. Mir. SuARUIATT said the paragraph appeared in the aSu,daI Times of the25th of Jamiary,in the present year. It was headed, "IntWded impead bentfsf an illuetrious peraoaage ;" and procCd4. ed to state, that " eitraordinary discoveyles bad been n2de at the India House;" and to insinuate that, in consequence of a deficiency to thc extent of 31,0001., the Court of Directors intended to im- peach an illustrious person, with an allasion to the apparent deter. mination to withhold the usual pension from the Iate Governor- leneralin India. Theeiarquis of Hastings, in his affidavit, stated that isa believed the paragraph was intended to apply to him ; that he had been Governor.Gcn-eral of India from October, 1813, to January, 1823; that, during that time, there was no deficit in any account whhatever under his control; that he had never parti- cipated ror sought to participate in any fund to wh ich as Goveryor. (1oneral he was not fully entitled : but that, on the Contrary, hehad refused to take advantages, 'which he understood rested only an cus- tom, and not on positive law. The noble Marquis further deposed, Cbat there was never, to his knowledge, any intention oF prefering an imnpeachwent against him oix. the ground of a dedciency or on any other cause; that no accusation or complaint of such a nature ever wa.s made against him ; and that hc believed the proceedingsat the India HEuse rehitiveto the grantof apension rested on otherand different grounds. Thus the AMarquis of Hastings liad given a full denial of anl the allegations in this libeHlous paragraph, and all the Inferences which could be drawn from it by the reader. Thc LoAD CHiasE JUSTicu.-Have you affidavits to bring home the publication to the parties against whom you move ? AIr. SCAItLETT.-i have. my Lrrd. The LonD CHIgF JtT3TicE-Then take a rule to show cause. THE KiNG, ON TUE PROSECUTION OF TEE kET. VWILLXtA5 CECtL, V. CHARLES iIADRISLL CIEERER, ESQ Mr. RoBiNsON moved for the judgmenrtof the Court on the defendant, who was convicted of a niisdemeanoar at the lst tsnn- bridge asaizes. The second count ef tbe indictment, upon which alone the defendant was found guilty, charyed binT with havinr on the 25th of December 1823, at the parish of Papworth Bvera.-, in the county of Camibridjee in the church and churchyard Of tho parish, unlawfully, wilfully, and contemptuously inserriiedl hindered and obstructed the Rev. Win. Cecil, the clergm Ian, i reading thecolder for the burial of the dead, and interring a corpse; and with having, in the said church, bv threats astd menaces, pre- vented and hinderea the burial of the corpse according to the rite and ceremnires of the church of EnglanLd Tbh other counts aleged the laying of vinlent hands upon two men In the dhurchyard; but these were ne_atived by the jary. Mr. Justice LITTLEDAT.E rend the report disclosing the evidenc', which was published at the time of the triaL ;Tr. SCARLUETT rose. It was the anxious desire of the defendant to place the whole of his conduct before the Court, anti show that he was incapable of actine in the manDer imputed to him; for this purpose he had many affidavits; but as he (Lr. Scarlett) intended to inovein arrest of judgment, it would not be correct to put in these affidavits at present. The lORtD CrIsEF JUSTIcrc said, the motien should have beeri made before the report was reatd. MIr. SCAtLETT expressed his regret that he had not submitted his motion earlier, anc* then proceeded to state the grounds on which it rested. The defendant had been convicted on the second count only, which stated no assault, andl did not allege that the clergyman was acting in the exectrtion of 1his dutv. IL then merely assetted that the defendlant, ?y menaces and threats, prevented tae burial of a corpse in the church or churchyard, wihich a clergsyman would have interred according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. Noow, if it was possible that aU wlich an in4ictment al. leged to be done muight be innocently done, there was no cbarf crime, and consequently no judgment could be given. There y.,ef marry cases in which a man might lawfoully, bv menaces and thireats, prevent a clergyrman from, burying a corpse. Auppose, for example, a number of Jews were carrying tne body of one of their nation to be interred at the synagogue, according to their law, and an over zei- lous clergrmati should insist on conveying it to the church, and per. torming (hristian burial over it, vwould the Jews be crinsinal for threatening thle zealot and his sexton with legal consequesnces in case of their persisting; or woald it be a crinie if they so obstructed the intended performance of the faneral ? Suppose, again, the execu. tors of a deceased person had determined on burying the tes-tator at a certain time and place, and a clergyman should insist on burying hiss at another time and in another churchyard, would they be cri. minal in explaining to him the illegality of Iiis design, and in pre. venting its execution by menaces ? Other circumstances might easily be imagined under wluclu it would be right and lawful to prevent, by mere threats, the interment of a corpse which a clergyman officiously proposed to bury. If, therefore, all the allegations in the count upon which tele verdict proceeded were consistent with an entire absence of moral and legal guilt, the iodgnient ought to be arres-ted. The COURT, after a short consultation, granted a rule to show cause why the judgment sbould not be arrested. THE grEG V. 'WATSO!C ANED BLISS. This was an indictmnent preferred by Williani Aaic a.ainst the defendants. tradesmen of Bethnal-green, for an assault. The case was tried before the lIord Chief Justicc at the last Middlesex sit- tings, wlhen the defendants were found guiilty. It appeared to be the practice for the friends of Ar. l3rutt-n. the vertrv'.clerk of Beth- nai-green, to celebrate his election by a'dinner at the Commercial Inn, Hackney, and afterwards to entertain a larger number of per. sons by an exhibition of fire-works. These persons were admitted by tickets, each of whicl gaye a right of entrance to two, anad which were issued by the stewards. At the last anniversary, M11r. MIan, who was of the adverse faction. went with a friend to see the fire- works, hut was thruxt out by the defendants, and pushed in the face by Mr. Watson. Alr. Man's friend was supplied with a ticket, but it did not appear that the defendatnts saw it till the assault was over. AIr. SCARLETT now moved for the judgment of the Court; but offered to forbear, if the pLrties would go before the M5aster with a view to payment of costs. Mr. BBo[JHAMot, for the defendant 'Watson. was ready to express his client's contrition; but thought it unreasonable that he should be required to pay the costs of an indictment which should have 'been preferred at sessions. Affidavits were then put in on the part of the defendants, alleging tlat if they had known or believed the preseCutor had a tietel, thty wouldl not have attempted to remove hiau. Air. BuouoitA,S%t then addressed tlhe CouYt for Watson, 31r. PsIrLLIPS for BIi.e, and Alr. SCARLETT for the prosecution. Afr. Justice BAYLEY, after expressing his regret that a celebra- tion tending to keep alive nanobiries in Bethnal-green sbould con- tinue, p assed the sentence of tihe C4ourt, that Wsatson should pay a fine of 301., and Bliss aiine of 101. THE KiYG, OX TRE PROSECUTION OF JOSEPS CItOW, V. THO. StAS NEW3MAN. AlMr. KELLY moved for the iudgnment of the Court on shis de- fendant, the lanlxord of the Green M1an at Barnett, who was con- victe d at the lazt Mtiddlesex sittings, of at, asa:ult on the prosecutor, a waiter in his service. It appeared at the trial that the prosecutor had placed a cane left at the inn by Lord Egremont in a closet, and that his master, com- plaining of tnie waiter for not carrying it to the bar, strack hi;n on the sidle, and used considerable violence. Affidlavits, in some respects con'radictory, were nowv produced as to the provocation, the assault itself, and the nature of the injury. Mr. Newman alleged that he had given general orders that all arti- des left by customers should be carried to the bar ; that the waiter, in disobedience of this command, had locked up Lord Egremont's cane in a closet, and that the servant provoked him by insolent IaD- guage. The prosecutor, on the other hand, alleged that the cane was placed in art open pantry, and that he rctaliatedl in words only when suffering from the defendant's violence. The prosecutor re- presentedtl the injury as serious adla13sting, while the surgeon, who hazd not appeared in answer to the attorniey at the trial, considered it a. of a trifling nature. The to p irs which these affidavits presented on each side were urged by Mr. KELLY for the prosecution, and the Commo-N SEJ- GEAST for the defendan t. The COURT, after adtnionisling the defendant to put more con- straint on his passions, sentenced hiunto p3y a fine of 40]. COURT OF KING'S BENC-H. WESTMItXSTER Nov.22. TlfE KING V. THE MAYORt AND STEIVARD OF WVEST LOO.